PUBLISHEKS'  NOTE. 


The  following  papers  are  issued  in  their  present  form 
l)y  permission  of  the  various  writers.  It  should  be  stated, 
however,  that  they  are  simply  reprints  (save  the  correction 
of  a  few  typographical  errors),  and  not  revisions  of  the 


original  text. 


CONTENTS 


I. — Letter  of  Dr.  De  Witt  (New  York  Evangelist, 

June  6,  1889), .7 

n. — Eesponse  of  Dr.  Van  Dyke  (New  York  Evangel- 
ist, jMne  27,  1889),  .        .         .        .        .        .9 

m. — Dr.  De  Witt's  Response  to  Dr.  Van  Dyke  (New 

York  Evangelist,  July  11,  1889),      ...     14 

rV. — Dr.  Van  Dyke's  Rejoinder  to  Dr.  DeWitt  (New 

York  Evangelist,  July  18,  1889),        ...     19 

V. — Dr.  De  Witt  on  Dr.  Van  Dyke's  Rejoinder  (New 

York  Evangelist,  July  25,  1889),       ...     25 

VI. — Replication  of  Dr.  Van  Dyke  to  Dr.  DeWitt 

(New  York  Evangelist,  August  1,  1889),  .         .     33 

Vn. — Prof.  Warfield's  Paper  presented  to  the  New 

Brunswick  Presbytery,  June  25,  1889,      .         .     39 

Vm, — Dr.  Van  Dyke  on  the  Action  of  the  New  Bruns- 
wick Presbytery  (Herald  and  Presbyter,  July 
31,  1889), 42 

IX. — Prof.  Warfield  in  reply  to  Dr.  Van  Dyke  [Her- 
ald and  Presbyter,  August  21,  28,  September 
4,  1889), 47 

X. — Dr.  Van  Dyke's  reply  to  Prof.  Warfield  {Her- 
ald and  Presbyter,  September  11,  18,  25, 1889),     63 

XI. — Letter  of  Prof    W.  G.   T.  Shedd  (New  York 

Emngehst,  September  5,  1889),        ...     81 

(5) 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


Xn.-  Dr.  Van  Dyee  on  Prof.  Shedd's  Letter  (New 

York  Ernni/rltsf,  September  26,  1889),    .         .     92 

Xin.— FuRTUER  Remarks  by  Prof.  Shedd  (New  York 

Evamjelist,  October  10,  1889),         .         .         -100 

XIV.— Dr.  V.\y  Dyke  in  reply  to  Prof.  Shedd  (New 

York  Erawjcli^t,  October  17,  1889),         .         •  107 
XV.— A  Note  from  Dr.  Shedd  (New  York  Evangelist, 

October  24,  1889), 115 

XVT.— God's  Infinite  Love  to  Men.     Dr.  Van  Dyke. 

{The  Fn'shytcrian,  October  5, 1889),        .         .  116 

XVn.— God's  Infinite  Love  to  j\Ien  and  The  West- 
minster Confession.  Prof.  Warfield.  {The 
Presbyterian,  November  2,  1889),   .         .         .120 

XVin.— The  Confession  and  God's  Infinite  Love  to  Men. 
Dr.  Van  Dyke.  {The  Presbyterian,  November 
16,  1889), 126 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 


LETTER  OF  DR.  DE  WITT. 

The  subject  of  tlie  Revision  of  the  Confession  will  now 
come  before  the  Presbyteries  in  a  form  which  will  enable 
our  ministers  seriously  to  consider  it.  One  does  not  need 
to  express  the  hope  that  they  will  bring  to  its  study  an 
adequate  appreciation  of  the  importance  of  rightly  answer- 
ing the  Assembly's  questions,  or  of  the  magnitude  of  the 
task  they  will  impose  on  the  Church  if  they  shall  decide 
in  favor  of  Revision.  This  may  safely  be  taken  for 
granted. 

There  is,  however,  a  suggestion  which  any  minister  may 
properly  take  on  himself  to  make  at  the  outset.  This 
is,  that  if  a  Presbytery  shall  express  a  desire  that  the 
statements  of  the  Confession  on  a  particular  subject  be 
amended,  this  desire  should  be  given  not  only  a  general 
and  negative  form,  but  a  positive  and  constructive  form 
also.  Let  us  know  exactly  the  words  which  a  Presbytery 
may  wish  to  substitute  for  the  present  words  of  the  Con- 
fession. 

It  is  easy  enough  to  criticise  the  language  of  the  West- 
minster Divines ;  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  write  formulas  on 
the  same  subjects,  which  will  command  as  general  an  assent 
throughout  the  Church.     This  is  a  fair  suggestion.     I  do 

(7) 


8  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

not  kn(>w  wlietlier  a  conninttee  was  appointed  by  the  Gen- 
eral AsseiHl)ly  lately  in  session,  to  receive  the  Presbyterial 
replies ;  but  it  is  clear  to  me  that  such  a  committee  might 
(piite  ])roperly  eliminate  as  valueless,  and  leave  unreported, 
any  reply  which  does  not  give  a  confessional  or  symbolical 
form  to  a  Presbytery's  proposed  amendment.  Let  us  have 
Siunples  of  the  new  or  revised  statements.  If  any  one  wants 
revision  on  any  subject,  let  him  try  his  hand  at  a  formula 
correlated  to  the  formulas  which  he  does  not  want  revised. 
Why  not?  If  the  present  confessional  declarations  are 
made  to  stand  up  for  critical  inspection  in  the  fierce  hght 
of  the  open  day,  why  should  the  proposed  future  confes- 
sional declarations  be  suffered  to  half  conceal  themselves  in 
a  sort  of  dim  moonshine  ?  It  is  possible  that  some  of  our 
ministers  have,  or  suppose  they  have,  formulas  in  their  heads 
better  than  those  in  the  Confession.  Let  us  see  the  formulas. 
Let  them  be  subjected  to  the  criticism  that  can  be  offered 
only  after  they  sliall  have  been  printed.  Let  no  one  be 
permitted  to  suppose  that  he  is  doing  anything  for  Revis- 
ion by  simply  saying,  "The  sections  on  Predestination 
should  be  amended,"  but  compel  him  to  write  out  a  section 
which  he  is  jprepared  to  defend  as  letter. 
Respectfully  yours, 

John  De  Witt. 

McCoRinCK  TnEOLOGiCAL  Seminary,  June  7,  1889. 


n. 

KESPONSE  OF  DR.  VAN  DYKE. 

The  revision  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  does  not  appear 
to  me  such  a  formidable  task  as  Dr.  De  Witt  apprehends. 
This  is  due  doubtless  to  onr  different  understanding  of  the 
thing  proposed.  He  says,  "  It  is  easy  enough  to  criticise 
the  language  of  the  Westminster  Divines ;  but  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  write  formulas  on  the  same  subjects  which  will 
command  as  general  an  assent  throughout  the  Church." 
For  one  I  do  not  believe  that  either  the  science  of  theology 
and  Scripture  exegesis,  or  the  art  of  expressing  divine  truth 
in  acceptable  words,  has  so  far  declined  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  rewrite  the  whole  or 
any  part  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  If  it  were  so,  it 
would  be  a  sad  result  of  these  two  hundred  years  of  Bibhcal 
study  and  theological  training.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to 
discuss  this  question.  So  far  as  I  know,  nobody  proposes 
to  make  a  new  Confession,  nor  to  rewrite  the  old  one,  nor 
even  to  make  an  entire  new  statement  of  any  doctrine  be- 
longing to  the  system  which  it  contains.  It  is  not  a  recon- 
struction, but  a  revision,  which  is  proposed.  To  revise, 
according  to  Worcester,  is  "to  look  over  with  a  view  to 
correct  or  amend."  After  studying  the  Confession  for 
nearly  half  a  century,  and  adhering  to  it  to-day  with  as 
much  loyalty  as  any  man  ought  to  feel  toward  any  un- 
inspired statement  of  divine  truth,  I  am  in  favor  of  tlie 
proposed  revision.  Without  admitting  the  canon  that  no 
one  ought  to  criticise  a  human  production  unless  he  is  able 
to  make  a  better  one,  or  that  no  Presbyterian  minister 

(9) 


10  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

sliould  express  liis  desire  to  have  the  Confession  revised 
unless  he  is  able  to  revise  it  himself,  I  am  ready  at  the  first 
call  of  the  trumpet  to  answer  Dr.  De  Witt's  challenge  to  give 
to  every  one  in  favor  of  the  revision  "samples  of  the  new 
or  revised  stater.ients,"  and  to  "  try  his  hand  at  a  formula 
correlated  to  the  formulas  he  does  not  want  revised/' 

Let  us  begin  with  Chapter  III.,  Of  God's  eternal  decree.    \ 
The  first  and  second  sections  contain  all  that  is  essential  to 
the  doctrine,  admirably  sums  up  the  teaching  of  Scripture 
on  the  subject,  and  guards  it  against  the  abominable  infer- 
ence that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  or  that  any  violence  is 
offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature.     But  the  third  section 
has  a  snpralapsarimi  bias.     It  may  be  construed  to  mean 
that  men  are  foreordained,  wdiether  to  life  or  death,  simply    i 
as  men,  and  not  as  fallen  men ;  in  other  words,  that  God    J 
makes  one  on  purpose  to  save  him,  and  another  on  purpose    j 
to  damn  him.     I  would  like  to  see  that  section  amended,    j 
and  brought  into  "  correlation "  with  the  teaching  of  the    ' 
most  orthodox  theologians  of  our  time,  by  inserting  the 
words y<9^  their  si?is,  so  that  it  would  read,  "By  the  decree 
of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  His  glory,  some  men  and 
angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
foreordained  for  their  sins  to  everlasting  death."     The 
fourth  section  I  would  like  to  see  stricken  out.     Because 
it  states  a  mere  theological  inference  not  in  any  way  neces- 
sary to  the  exposition  of  the  doctrine,  and  especially  be- 
cause it  goes  beyond  the  statements  of  the  Scripture  on  the 
subject.     There  is  no  appropriate  proof -text  for  it.     The 
two  that  are  quoted  are  \vide  of  the  mark.    The  declaration 
of  Paul,  "The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His"  (2  Tim. 
ii.  19),  and  the  saying  of  Christ,  "  I  know  whom  I  have 
chosen,"  were  not  intended  to  show  that  the  number  of 
those  predestinated,  whether  to  life  or  to  death,  "cannot  be 
either  increased  or  diminished,''  neither  do  they  prove  it ; 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  11 

nor  is  it  necessary  to  prove  it.  The  seventh  section  of  the 
same  chapter  contains  another  tlieological  inference,  wliich, 
however  logical,  is  not  necessary  to  a  positive  and  complete 
statement  of  the  Scripture  truth.  The  word  preterition,  or 
reprobation^  is  not  used  in  our  Confession,  but  the  doctrine 
covered  by  these  terms  is  taught  in  this  section.  Some  of 
our  ablest  and  most  orthodox  ministers  openly  reject  it, 
and  it  is  a  stumbling-block  to  many.  If  any  one  says  their 
rejection  of  this  section,  while  they  accept  the  rest  of  the 
chapter,  proves  that  they  are  not  strictly  orthodox,  and 
that  the  statement  ought  to  be  retained  as  a  test  between 
the  Calvinistic  and  the  Calvinist :  I  have  only  to  say  that 
as  a  Calvinist  I  have  no  sympathy  with  such  intolerance 
and  want  of  tenderness  for  others. 

But  the  striking  out  of  this  section  would  not  satisfy  me. 
I  would  like  to  see  its  place  supplied  with  something  which 
would  amend  what  many  of  our  best  divines  regard  as  a 
serious  defect  in  our  Confession  taken  as  a  whole,  namely : 
that  it  contains  no  explicit  declaration  of  the  infinite  love 
of  God,  revealed  in  the  fullness  of  the  Gospel  salvation  as 
sufiicient  for,  adapted  to,  and  freely  offered  to  all  men. 
And  here  I  am  willing  to  "  try  my  hand  at  a  formula  cor- 
related to  the  formulas  which  I  do  not  want  revised,"  and 
to  submit  it  to  the  criticism  of  all  the  orthodox.  Let  the 
seventh  section  read  thus :  "  God's  eternal  decree  hindereth 
no  one  from  accepting  Christ  as  He  is  freely  offered  to 
us  in  the  Gospel ;  nor  ought  it  to  be  so  construed  as  to 
contradict  the  declarations  of  Scripture,  that  Christ  is  the 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  God 
is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance."  Will  any  Presbyterian  minister  dare 
to  say  that  such  a  formula  as  this  would  not  correlate  with 
the  rest  of  our  Confession,  or  that  it  would  introduce  a  dis- 
cordant element  into  the  chapter  on  the  divine  decrees? 


12  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

That  is  precisely  the  position  of  Armiuians  and  all  other 
opponents  t>f  the  Calvinistic  system ;  and  one  who  objects 
to  such  an  amendment  plays  into  their  hands.  I  contend 
that  this  amendment,  or  one  expressing  the  same  thoughts 
in  better  language,  wonld  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
whole  Confession,  and  that  it  would  add  logical  force  as 
well  as  divine  beauty  to  the  concluding  section  of  the  chap- 
ter about  handling  the  doctrine  of  this  liigh  mystery  of 
predestination  witli  special  prudence  and  care,  so  that  it 
may  alford  matter  of  praise  to  God  and  abundant  conso- 
lation to  all  who  obey  the  Gospel. 

The  tenth  chapter  of  the  Confession  contains  the  well- 
known  plirase,  "  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy."  I  will 
not  enter  upon  the  discussion  as  to  the  historic  meaning  of 
that  much-jaculated  phrase,  nor  review  the  explanations  by 
which  we  answer  the  interpretations  of  our  enemies,  nor 
answer  for  the  thousandth  time  the  old  slander  that  Calvin 
taught  that  liell  is  paved  with  infants'  skulls.  We  have 
fenced  and  fought  and  played  football  with  the  phrase  long 
enough.  If  the  Westminster  Assembly  adopted  it  as  a 
compromise,  let  us  no  longer  perpetuate  their  ambiguity. 
If  it  means  that  all  dying  infants  are  elect,  let  us  say  so  in 
the  Confession  itself,  in  words  tliat  will  leave  no  room  for 
controversy.  If  it  means  that  the  whole  sul)ject  is  in  doubt, 
and  that  for  aught  we  know  some  dying  infants  may  be 
lost,  let  us  reject  a  doctrine  which  no  Presbyterian  min- 
ister holds,  or  would  dare  to  preacli  if  he  did.  I  believe 
with  Dr.  Hodge,  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy,  baptized 
and  unbaptized,  born  in  Christian  or  in  heathen  lands,  are 
elect  and  saved.  (See  Hodge's  "  Theology,"  vol.  i.,  p.  29.) 
And  therefore  I  am  in  favor  of  amending  the  Confession 
at  this  point  by  striking  out  the  word  elect^  and  substituting 
the  word  all,  f^o  that  the  section  would  read  thus:  "All 
infants  dying  in   infancy  are   regenerated  and  saved  by 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  13 

Clirist  tlirongli  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when  and  where 
and  how  He  pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons 
who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  min- 
istry of  the  Word." 

These  are  not  all  the  amendments  which  I  would  like  to 
have  made,  but  they  may  serve  for  the  required  samples. 
They  are  offered  without  consultation  with  any  one.  They 
are  my  personal  convictions  after  many  years  of  study. 
They  do  not  indicate  any  defection  from  our  Standards, 
but  a  profound  love  and  loyalty  which  would  vindicate 
them  from  reproach,  and  lift  them  higher  in  the  estimation 
of  men.  In  this  respect  I  claim  to  be  in  the  first  rank  of 
the  orthodox.  But  the  Confession  is  not  the  Bible.  Its 
authors  were  not  inspired,  nor  is  their  work  immaculate. 
As  to  the  sentiment — for  it  can  hardly  be  called  an  opinion 
without  disrespect — that  this  human  and  fallible  exposition 
of  the  Scriptures,  after  two  hundred  years  of  improved 
Christian  scholarship,  cannot  be  amended  for  the  better, 
nothing  but  personal  regard  for  those  who  entertain  it  re- 
strains our  laughter. 

Heney  J.  Van  Dyke. 

Brooklyn,  June  32, 1889. 


III. 

DR.  DE  WITT'S  EESPONSE  TO  DR.  VAN  DYKE. 

I  SAW  only  yesterday  Dr.  Yaii  Dyke's  response  to  my 
letter  on  Confessional  Revision.  I  was  delighted  to  find 
not  only  that  my  letter  had  attracted  the  attention  of  so 
eminent  a  minister,  but  also  that  the  suggestion  it  contained 
had  received  from  him  the  most  emphatic  endorsement  he 
could  give  to  it,  namely,  the  endorsement  involved  in  its 
adoption.  Some  of  your  readers  may  remember  that  I 
called  attention  to  the  ease  with  which  the  "Confession  can 
be  criticised,  and  contrasted  this  ease  with  the  difficulty  of 
formulating  confessional  statements  which  will  command 
an  assent  as  general  as  that  now  commanded  by  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  I  suggested  that  those  who  desire  amend- 
ments, present  their  amendments  in  jwsitrve  form,  corre- 
lating them  to  the  statements  of  the  Confession  which  they 
do  not  wish  amended. 

This  Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  done.  He  has  formulated  two 
amendments.  He  has  brought  to  their  preparation  excep- 
tionally vigorous  and  well-trained  mental  powers,  wide  and 
accurate  theological  knowledge,  and,  above  all,  the  accunni- 
lated  results  of  "  a  study  of  the  Confession  for  half  a  cen- 
tury by  one  who  loyally  adheres  to  it."  The  proposals  of 
such  a  man  must  be  read  with  deep  interest  by  a  large 
number  of  clergymen  ;  and  the  fact  that  they  are  put  for- 
ward l)y  him,  is  itself  likely  to  secure  for  them  a  favorable 
consideration.  I  am  happy  in  the  thought  that  I  called 
him  out,  and  I  am  especially  interested  in  the  proposals  he 
[U) 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  15 

has  made,  because  tliej  finely  illustrate  the  difficulty  I  men- 
tioned in  my  letter — the  difficulty,  I  mean,  of  preparintr 
satisfactory  confessional  formulas.  That  I  may  be  clearly 
understood,  I  undertake  to  show  that  one,  at  least,  if  not 
both,  of  Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  proposed  amendments,  will,  if 
adopted,  make  our  Confession  of  Faith  a  narrower  or  less 
liberal  symbol  than  it  is  at  present. 

The  third  section  of  the  tenth  chapter  commences  with 
the  often-repeated  sentence,  "Elect  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  tln-ough  the 
Spirit,  who  worketh  when  and  where  and  how  He  pleas- 
eth."  This,  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  projDOses  to  amend  by  striking 
out  the  word  "Elect"  and  by  inserting  in  its  place  the 
word  "  All."  He  says  that  he  "  will  not  enter  upon  the 
discussion  of  the  historic  meaning  of  the  statement,"  and 
for  that  reason  I  refrain  from  doing  so,  although  a  discus- 
sion of  its  history,  so  far  as  that  can  be  ascertained,  would, 
in  my  judgment,  bring  into  clear  light  the  wisdom  and  the 
catholicity  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines.  Especially  would 
it  show  how  important  in  their  view  is  the  distinction  be- 
tween a  dogma  of  the  faith,  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  private 
opinion  on  the  other, — a  distinction  which  ought  never  to 
be  lost  sight  of  by  any  who  undertake  to  frame  a  statement 
intended  to  bind  the  conscience  of  a  Church. 

But  without  going  into  the  history  of  the  sentence,  it  is 
clear  that  it  permits,  as  it  was  intended  to  permit,  a  presby- 
ter to  hold  and  to  teach  any  one  of  the  four  following  opin- 
ions :  First,  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved ;  second, 
some  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  not  saved  ;  third,  though 
it  is  impossible  to  be  certain,  yet  there  is  a  well-grounded 
hope  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved  ;  fourth,  though 
certainty  is  impossible,  there  are  considerations  that  awaken 
the  fear  that  God  has  not  chosen  to  regenerate  all  infants 
dying  in  hifancy.     Thus  the  Westminster  divines  left  the 


H)  CONFESSIONAL    KKVISION. 

whole  suhject  to  iiidividiuil  opinion,  and  nuide  places  under 
tlie  Confesijion — as  our  fathers,  by  ado])tin<»;  their  work, 
made  places  Id  the  Church — for  men  of  widely  differiug 
views. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  now  propoi^es  to  deline  as  a  doctrine  what 
has  hitherto  been  left  to  private  opinion.  He  will  permit 
no  opinion  except  tho  opinion,  ''  All  infants  dying  in  infancy 
are  saved."  Henceforth,  should  his  proposal  be  adopted, 
doubt  or  hesitancy  in  respect  to  the  future  salvation  of  all 
infants  dying  in  infancy  will  have  no  more  legal  right  in  the 
breast  of  a  Presbyterian  minister  than  doubt  in  respect  either 
to  the  existence  of  a  personal  God  or  to  the  reality  of  the 
Atonement  of  Christ.  Should  a  minister  make  so  cautious 
and  conservative  a  statement  as  that  made  by  the  late  Prof. 
Henry  B.  Smith,  "  As  to  those  who  die  in  infancy,  there 
is  a  well-grounded  hope  that  they  are  of  the  elect  "  {''  Chris- 
tian Theology,"  p.  322),  it  would  be  competent  for  a 
Presbytery  to  deal  with  him  just  as  it  would  deal  with  a 
minister  who  should  say,  "  As  to  a  personal  God,  there  is  a 
well-grounded  hope  that  He  will  be  found  to  exist."  I  say, 
therefore,  that  Dr.  Van  Dyke's  i)roposal  on  this  subject  is  a 
proposal  to  narrow  the  Church — to  make  it  less  liberal  than 
it  is  to-day,  by  lifting  out  of  the  realm  of  oi)inion,  and  into 
the  realm  of  officially  defined  dogma,  a  subject  concerning 
which  we  are  now  at  liberty  to  reach  individual  conclu- 
sions. 

Moreover,  if  Dr.  Van  Dyke  should  get  his  amendment 
passed,  he  would  be  in  no  better  position  as  a  religious 
teacher,  so  far  as  this  subject  is  concerned,  than  he  is  now. 
He  could  not  announce  in  the  pulpit  any  more  positively 
than  he  is  now  pennitted  to  do,  that  ''  all  who  die  in  in- 
fancy are  saved."  The  sum  total  of  his  gain  would  be  the 
imposition  on  the  whole  Church,  as  a  defined  dogma,  of 
>vhat  is  now  a  private  belief.     The  only  result  would  be  to 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  17 

make  tlie  theological  platform  of  the  Church  less  liberal 
than  it  now  is. 

I  have  no  right  to  ask  for  space  in  order  to  criticise  at 
length  Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  proposed  amendments  of  the  chapter 
on  the  decree  of  God.  Indeed,  writing  at  a  distance  from 
my  books,  I  hesitate  to  say  anytliing.  I  will  say,  however, 
that  one  of  them  is  open  to  the  same  objection  that  I  offer 
to  his  proposal  eoncerniiig  the  "  infants  dying  in  infancy." 
He  objects  to  the  present  form  of  the  third  section,  because 
it  has  "a  supralapsarian  bias."  He  will  not  say  that  a  sub- 
lapsarian  Calvinist  cannot  accept  it.  That  the  sublapsarian 
can  do.  But  the  difficulty  is  that  a  sujDralapsarian  Calvinist 
can  accept  it  also.  The  effect  of  his  amendment  would  not 
be  to  make  it  easier  for  sublapsarian  Calvinists  to  subscribe 
the  declaration,  for  that  is  perfectly  easy  now.  It  w^ould 
only  be,  if  it  had  any  effect  of  the  kind,  to  make  it  more 
difficult  for  supralapsarian s  to  subscribe  it.  At  any  rate. 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  avowed  object  is  to  get  rid  of  supralapsarian- 
ism.  J^ow  I  think  it  one  of  the  glories  of  this  Confession, 
that  its  authors  were  unwilling  to  drive  out  of  the  synagogue 
those  who  held  either  historical  form  of  Calvinisin.  And 
though  I  am  no  more  a  supralapsarian  than  Dr.  Yan  Dyke 
is,  Beza,  Gomarus,  Yan  Mastricht,  and  Twisse,  the  Prolocu- 
tor of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  were,  unless  my  memory 
is  at  fault.  And  w^hen  I  read  tlie  Institutes  of  Calvin,  I  am 
unable  to  find  anything  that  shows  clearly  that  he  was  not. 
Certainly,  I  shall  not  vote  for  an  amendment  intended  or 
calculated  to  make  the  platform  of  the  Church  too  narrow 
for  these  men  to  stand  on. 

I  have,  I  think,  maintained  the  proposition  with  which  I 
began,  namely,  that  Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  amendments,  if  adopted, 
will  make  the  Confession  of  our  Church  less  liberal  than  it 
is.  This,  I  undertake  to  say,  will  be  the  effect  of  most  of 
the  amendments  that  shall  be  proposed,  unless  great  care  is 


IS  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

taken.  Tlie  AVestiniiii^ter  divines  were  an  exceptionally 
wise  body  of  men.  Tlie  wisdom  of  the  Assembly  was  far 
greater  tlian  tlie  wisdom  of  its  wisest  member.  I  have  not 
studied  tlie  Confession  for  half  a  century,  as  Dr.  Van  Dyke 
has  done.  Still  I  have  studied  it,  and  I  profoundly  admire 
the  learning  and  the  wisdom  its  authors  displayed,  not  only 
in  what  they  defined,  but  also,  and  I  may  say  especially,  in 
what  they  might  have  been  expected  to  define,  and  yet  re- 
frained from  defining.  The  result  of  their  labors  is,  that  the 
Confession,  when  subscribed  as  we  subscril)e  it  in  onr 
Church,  gives  to  a  ministry  the  largest  liberty  possible 
within  the  limits  of  the  Calvinistic  or  Reformed  theology. 
My  own  impression  is,  that  we  would  better  let  it  stand  as 
it  is.  I  say  this,  remembering  that  it  is  not  impossible  that 
an  amendment  may  be  proposed  wdiich  will  really  improve 
it.  I  hazard  nothing,  how^ever,  in  asserting  that  attempts 
to  improve  it,  while  keeping  it  Calvinistic,  are  usually 
attempts  to  narrow  it  by  imposing  passing  indi\idual  opin- 
ions on  the  conscience  of  the  whole  Church. 

Of  course  the  Presbyterian  Church  may  some  day  desire 
to  relegate  all  that  is  distinctively  Calvinistic  in  its  creed  to 
the  realm  of  private  opinion  ;  and  in  the  interest  of  Cliurch 
unity,  to  stand  on  some  such  doctrinal  platform  as  that  of 
the  American  Tract  Society  or  the  Evangelical  Alliance. 
The  Congregationalists  of  some  parts  of  the  country  have 
done  this  substantially,  but  the  result  up  to  this  time  docs 
not  encourage  the  hope  that  such  a  change  of  doctrinal 
platform  will  promote  belief  in  the  distinctive  doctrines  of 
Christianity. 

But  this  is  a  large  subject,  and  the  excision  of  Calvinism 
from  the  Confession  is  not  the  subject  now  before  the 
Church. 

John  De  Witt. 

The  Hill  •  Danvili^,  Pa..  July  3,  1889. 


IV. 


■'.       DE.  VAN  DYKE'S  EEJOINDEK  TO  DE. 
DE  WITT. 

Dr.  De  Witt's  article  in  the  Evangelist  of  July  lltli,  is 
so  full  of  respectful  kindness  that  it  seems  like  ingratitude 
to  make  any  response  beyond  my  thanks  for  his  courtesy. 
But  the  subject  under  discussion  is  so  far  above  personal 
considerations,  that  I  am  sure  my  generous  friend  will  not 
be  offended  by  my  observing  that  he  is  too  hasty  in  claim- 
ing the  victory.  Let  not  him  that  putteth  on  his  armor, 
boast  as  he  that  putteth  it  off.  He  has  not  proved  the 
sweeping  assertion  "  that  attempts  to  improve  the  Confes- 
sion, while  keeping  it  Calvinistic,  are  usually  attempts  to 
narrow  it  by  imposing  passing  individual  opinions  on  the 
conscience  of  \\\q  whole  Church  ";  nor  has  he  shown  that 
all  or  any  of  the  amendments  I  proposed  are  ''  private 
opinions,"  which,  if  adopted,  "  would  make  our  Confession 
less  liberal  than  it  is."  It  is  not  clear  to  my  mind  witli 
what  precise  meaning  Dr.  De  Witt  uses  the  phrase  '-'private 
opinion."  In  his  article  it  seems — unintentionally,  of  course 
— to  "  palter  in  a  double  sense."  When  he  says,  "  Of 
course  the  Presbyterian  Church  may  desire  some  day  to 
relegate  all  that  is  distinctively  Calvinistic  in  its  creed,  to 
the  realm  of  private  opinion,"  the  word  private  appears  to 
be  synonymous  with  unauthorized — not  recognized  in  the 
Standards.  But  this  cannot  be  his  meaning,  when  he  ap- 
plies the  same  epithet  to  my  proposed  amendments:  for 
they  are  confessedly  unauthorized,  and  because  they  are  not 
in  the  Confession  already,  we  desire  to  put  them  into  it. 

(19) 


20  CONFESSIONAL  KEYISION. 

V>y  "private  opiniuii ''  lie  must  niraii  an  opinion  held  by 
very  few,  not  generally  adopted,  or  as  lie  himself  explains 
it,  '*  a  j)a,'<sh)(/  imlividual  opinion."  In  response  to  his 
summons,  I  proposed  Jive  distinct  amendments.  lias  he 
])roved  that  any  one  of  them  is  a  passing  individual  opinion  '( 
I  think  not.  Three  of  them  he  does  not  notice  at  all,  viz. : 
the  proposals  to  strike  out  the  fourth  and  seventh  sections 
of  the  third  chapter,  and  especially  the  new  section  which 
I  offered  iis  a  substitute  for  the  seventh,  in  these  words : 
"  God's  eternal  decree  hindereth  no  one  from  accepting 
Christ  as  He  is  freely  offered  to  us  in  the  Gospel ;  nor 
(^ught  it  to  be  so  construed  as  to  contradict  the  declarations 
of  Scripture  that  Christ  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  and  that  God  is  not  willing  that  any  should 
])erish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance."  This  is 
the  only  instance  in  which  I  undertook,  in  answer  to  Dr. 
De  Witt's  challenge,  to  formulate  a  statement  ''correlated 
to  the  formulas  which  he  does  not  want  revised."  But  the 
challenger  takes  no  notice  of  it  whatever.  Does  he  brand 
this  simi)le  statement  of  the  fullness  and  freeness  of  the 
Gospel  as  a  passing  individual  opinion  which  ought  not  to 
be  "  im])ose<l  upon  the  conscience  of  the  Church  "  ?  Or  are 
we  permitted  to  conclude  that  his  silence  gives  consent  ? 

Of  the  two  remaining  amendments,  the  first  has  for  its 
avowed  ol)ject,  as  Dr.  De  AVitt  correctly  says,  to  get  rid  of 
the  sujtralajmirian  Has  from  Section  3,  Chapter  III.,  by 
making  it  read  that  God  foreordains  men  to  everlasting 
death,  not  merely  for  His  own  glory,  but  also  fo)'  their 
sins.  Dr.  De  Witt  does  not  deny  that  as  it  now  stands,  it 
has  a  supralapsarian  bias;  but  he  defends  and  desires  to 
retain  the  present  form  of  the  statement.  He  says  that  it 
is  perfectly  easy  for  the  sublapsarian  to  subscribe  to  it,  and 
intimates  that  I  will  not  say  to  the  contrary.  But  that  is 
just  what  I  <1o  say.     It  is  a  stumbling-block  and  an  offence. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  21 

If  it  was  designed  to  embrace  botli  the  supralapsarian  and 
tlie  sublapsai-iaii  form  of  Calvinism,  it  failed  in  its  object ; 
for  it  leans  distinctly  toward  the  theory  that  God  foreor- 
dains men  to  eternal  death  simply  as  creatures,  antecedent 
to  and  irrespective  of  their  sins.  For  one,  I  do  not  believe 
this ;  neither  do  I  subscribe  to  it.  I  receive  and  adopt  the 
Confession  as  a  whole,  m  spite  of  this  statement.  Ninety- 
nine  hundredths  of  our  Presbyterian  ministers  do  the 
same. 

But  Dr.  De  Witt  is  troubled  about  the  effect  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment  upon  the  standing  of  the  dead.  He  tells 
us  that  Gomarus,  Yan  Maestrict,  and  Twisse,  and  even 
Calvin,  were  supralapsarian s,  and  he  will  not  "  vote  for  an 
amendment  which  would  make  the  platform  of  the  Church 
too  narrow  for  these  men  to  stand  on.'-  Admitting,  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument  (though  I  deny  it  in  fact,  so  far  as  re- 
gards Calvin),  that  these  men  all  held  the  supralapsarian 
theory,  what  then  ?  None  of  them  but  Twisse  ever  adopted 
our  Confession ;  and  now  they  are  all  in  heaven,  where  they 
are  not  required  to  do  so.  Our  fellowship  with  the  saints 
in  glory  does  not  rest  upon  our  Confession  of  Faith.  We 
propose  to  amend  our  Standard  with  a  view  to  its  adapta- 
tion to  the  living,  not  to  the  dead.  How  many  among  the 
recognized  teachers  of  theology  in  the  American  Presby- 
terian Church  have  held  the  supralapsarian  theory  ?  Not 
me.  Woods,  Kichards,  Henry  B.  Smith,  the  Hodges, 
Thornwell,  Shedd— all  repudiate  it.  How  maiiy  of  our 
living  ministry  believe  or  preach  it  ?  Does  Dr.  De  Witt 
know  of  any  whose  conscience  w^ould  be  imposed  upon  by 
the  adoption  of  my  sublapsarian  amendment?  If  there 
were  space  for  such  discussion,  I  could  easily  show  that  the 
doctrine  of  this  amendment,  so  far  from  being  "  a  passing 
individual  opinion,"  belongs  to  the  very  substance  and  con- 
sensus of  the  Peformed  theology ;  that  the  contrary  opinion 


22  CONFESSIONAL   llEVISION. 

hcloni^s  nut  tu  the  sixteenth,  but  to  the  seventeenth  century ; 
that  its  seed  was  sown,  not  by  such  as  Beza  and  Calvin,  but 
bv  men  Hke  Twisse ;  and  that  its  fruit  is  seen  in  tliat  hide- 
ous Eninionsisni  from  which  the  New  Tlieology  of  Xew 
Enghmd  is  largely  the  natural  and  necessary  revolt.  Dr. 
A.  A.  Ilodge,  in  his  "  Consensus  of  the  Reformed  Confes- 
sions," says :  "  It  is  no  part  of  the  Ileformed  faith  that  God 
created  men  in  order  to  damn  them  ;  nor  that  His  treatment 
of  the  lost  is  to  be  referred  to  His  sovereign  will.  He  con- 
demns men  only  as  a  Judge  for  their  sins,  to  the  praise  of 
His  glorious  justice"  {Presbyterian  Review^  vol.  v.,  p. 
295).  Even  if  there  were  many  men  in  our  Church  to-day 
to  agree  with  Twisse,  the  practical  question  would  be 
whether  they  should  tolerate  us,  or  w^e  tolerate  them.  I 
think  the  exercise  of  toleration  is  the  privilege  of  an  over- 
whelming majority. 

The  same  course  of  argument  applies  equally  well  to  the 
proposed  amendment  in  regard  to  the  salvation  of  infants. 
The  ])hrase  *' elect  infants,"  if  it  was  intended  to  eml)race 
all  opinions  on  tlie  subject  i)rcvalent  in  the  AVestminster 
Assembly  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  has  practically  failed 
in  our  day  to  accomi)lish  its  object.  It  is  quoted  and  under- 
stood by  thousands  within  and  without  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  not  only  as  tolerating,  but  as  teaching  by  implica- 
tion that  some  dying  infants  are  lost,  in  fulfilment  of  a 
supralapsarian  decree.  J>ut  where  is  the  man  or  woman  in 
(Mir  Church  who  believes  this^  Dr.  Ilodge  says,  "  It  is  the 
general  belief  of  Protestants,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
Romanists  and  Romanizers,  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are 
saved"  (see  ''Theology,''  vol.  i.,  p.  27).  He  also  de- 
clares that  he  never  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who 
doubted  it.  Dr.  Thomas  Smyth,  whose  ministry  covered 
the  greater  part  of  the  first  half  of  this  century,  in  his  book 
on  the  "Salvation  of  Infants,"  jmblished  in    1848,- says: 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  23 

''  At  this  time  it  is,  I  suppose,  universally  believed  by  Pres- 
byterians and  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  election,  that 
all  dying  infants  are  included  among  the  elect.  I  at  least 
am  not  acquainted  with  any  who  hold  an  opposite  opinion." 
There  is  a  great  cloud  of  witnesses  whose  testimony  is  to  the 
same  effect. 

But  in  face  of  all  their  testimony,  Dr.  De  Witt  says  the 
belief  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved,  is  a  mere 
private  opinion — a  passing  individual  opinion — and  that 
its  adoption  into  the  Confession  would  be  an  imposition  upon 
the  conscience  of  the  whole  Church.  Nay,  he  thinks  the 
adoption  of  such  an  amendment  would  not  only  narrow  our 
Confession,  but  might  stir  up  the  tires  of  bigotry  and  per- 
secution. Surely  our  good  brother  is  tilting  at  a  shadow 
when  he  says,  "  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  will  permit  no  opinion,  except 
the  opinion  that  'all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved.' 
Henceforth,  should  his  proposal  be  adopted,  doubt  or  hesi- 
tancy in  respect  to  the  salvation  of  all  dying  infants  will 
have  no  more  legal  right  in  the  breast  of  a  Presbyterian 
minister,  than  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of  a  personal  God, 
or  the  reality  of  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Should  a  minis- 
ter make  such  a  cautious  and  conservative  statement  as  that 
made  by  the  late  Prof.  H.  B.  Smith — '  As  to  those  who  die 
in  infancy,  there  is  a  well-grounded  hope  that  they  are  of 
the  elect' — it  would  be  competent  for  a  Presbytery  to  deal 
with  him,  just  as  it  would  deal  with  a  minister  who  should 
say,  'As  to  a  personal  God,  there  is  a  well-grounded  hope 
that  He  will  be  found  to  exist.' "  This  is  a  redxictio  ad 
absivrdmn^  but  it  is  not  on  my  side.  No  one  proposes  to 
make  the  salvation  of  infants  as  important  a  doctrine  as  the 
existence  of  God.  I  am  not  so  sure  as  Dr.  De  Witt  seems 
to  be,  that  a  icell-g rounded  hope  in  regard  to  either,  is  not 
quite  as  good  as  an  assured  belief.  I  do  not  think  any 
Presbytery  would  convict  a  man  of  heresy  for  making  either 


24  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

statement.  Tlicre  is,  Iiowcvlt,  this  difference  between  thv 
two  subjects  :  the  existence  of  God  is  a  matter  of  C(>nsci()U>- 
ness  as  well  as  of  testimony,  whereas  the  salvation  of  infant.- 
rests  only  «»n  the  tcstini(»ny  of  God's  Word.  If  a  man  be- 
lieves that  his  hope  of  their  salvation  is  well  (jrouiided  in 
that  testimony,  1  think  his  faith  is  about  as  stron<i;  relatively 
t(>  its  subject,  as  when  he  says,  I  believe  and  know  there  is 
a  personal  (rod. 

If  both  these  amendments  were  adopted,  the  supralapsa- 
rian  and  the  doubter  in  regard  to  infant  salvation,  if  such 
there  are,  would  have  no  more  difficulty  in  adopting  the 
Confession,  than  the  great  mass  of  our  ministers  have  now. 
No  one  would  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue,  while  many 
would  be  encouraged  to  come  in.  And  above  all,  the  whole 
Church  would  have  the  immense  public  advantage  of  con- 
forming her  Confession  to  her  faith.  A  dead  law  on  the 
statute-book  impairs  the  authority  of  all  law.  A  doctrinal 
stiitement  in  our  Confession,  which  the  mass  of  our  minis- 
ters and  people  do  not  believe,  opens  the  door  for  unbounded 
license  in  subscribing  to  our  Standards.  For  this  very  rea- 
son some  are  opposed  to  revision.  Ihit  Dr.  De  AVitt  is  not 
one  of  them  ;  and  I  am  not  without  hopes  that  he,  with  his 
inherited  zeal  for  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  his  broad 
scliolarly  attainments,  will  yet  be  found  among  the  advocates 
of  a  conservative  revision. 

Henky  J.  Van  Dyke. 


Y. 


DK.   DE   WITT   ON  DK.  YAK  DYKE'S 
EEJOIKDEK 

Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  rejoinder  contains  so  much  that  de- 
serves observation,  that  if  I  did  it  justice,  I  should  occupy 
more  S23ace  than  the  Evangelist  can  lend  me.  Besides,  I 
desire  briefly  to  notice  the  amazing  diversity  in  the  pro- 
posals for  revision  already  made  in  your  hospitable  columns. 
For  these  reasons  I  omit  much  I  should  like  to  say,  and 
before  noticing  this  diversity,  confine  myself  to  answering 
two  questions  which  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  puts  to  me. 

1.  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  says  that  I  did  not  remark  on  the  new 
section,  which  he  proposes  as  a  substitute  for  one  of  the 
sections  on  the  decree  of  God,  and  very  properly  asks 
whether  my  silence  is  to  be  understood  as  agreement  with 
him  in  respect  to  that  proposal.  In  reply  I  have  to  say 
first,  that  any  criticism  of  this  particular  proposal,  seemed 
in  the  circumstances  unnecessary.  I  wished  to  illustrate 
the  difiiculty  which  even  a  trained,  able,  and  learned 
theologian  must  find,  in  the  endeavor  to  formulate  confes- 
sional statements  as  widely  acceptable  as  those  of  the  Con- 
fession. I  found  abundant  material  for  my  purpose  in  his 
other  proposed  amendments.  Having  shown  clearly,  as  I 
think  I  did,  that  these,  if  adopted,  would  make  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  a  narrower  and  less  liberal  symbol  than  it 
now  is,  I  did  all  that  I  thought  needed.  It  did  not  seem 
necessary  to  make  evident,  as  I  am  now  obliged  to  do,  tlie 
infelicity  of  still  another  of  his  amendments.     Secondly, 

(25) 


26  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

writing  at  a  distance  from  my  books,  I  hesitated  to  criticise 
at  length  this  carefully  drawn  substitute  for  a  section  of 
the  (Miapter  on  the  Decree.  But  thirdly,  since  Dr.  Van 
Dyke  has  emphasized,  by  reprinting,  this  particular  exam- 
ple of  revision,  and  puts  the  question,  "  Does  your  silence 
mean  consent?"  I  have  great  pleasure  in  stating  as  shortly 
as  possible  my  objections  to  his  proposed  new  section,  re- 
garded as  a  "  Confessional  formula."  His  proposed  new 
section  is  as  follows : 

"  God's  eternal  decree  hiudereth  no  one  from  accepting  Christ  as  He 
is  freely  offered  in  the  Gospel  ;  nor  ought  it  to  be  so  construed  as  to 
contradict  the  declarations  of  Scripture  that  Christ  is  the  propitiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  God  is  not  willing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance." 

My  objections  are  two : 

First.  The  proposed  section  quotes,  without  the  slightest 
attempt  to  interpret  them,  two  ve^'ses  of  Scripture,  the 
meaning  of  one  of  which  has  for  a  long  time  been,  and 
still  is,  debated  among  the  ministers  of  our  Church,  who 
yet  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke  knows  very  well  that  a  Creed,  or  Confession  of  Faith, 
})ruper]y  constructed,  is  not  a  response  in  Scriptural  lan- 
guage to  the  language  of  Scripture.  Indeed,  it  is  a  state- 
ment in  dogmatic  propositions,  constituted  of  language 
other  than  that  of  Scripture,  of  the  Church's  interpretation 
of  Scripture.  The  creeds,  whether  Ecumenical,  Greek, 
Latin,  Lutheran,  or  Tleformcd,  are  conspicuously  not  in 
Scriptural  language,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  they  are 
intended  to  be  official  expositions  of  Scrii)tural  language. 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  proposed  amendment,  being  clothed  in  the 
language  of  Scripture,  violates  the  fundamental,  constitu- 
tive, and  historical  idea  of  a  creed  statement. 

Second.     One  of  the  two  verses  employed  by  him  was 


CONFESSIONAL   EEVISION.  2/ 

one  of  the  most  often  quoted  and  debated  verses  during 
that  long  and  unhappy  ecclesiastical  controversy  which  be- 
gan before  the  Separation  of  1838,  and  ended  at  the 
Reunion  of  1869.  The  question  of  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  "  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,"  was  answered  in 
one  way  by  Old  School,  in  another  by  New  School,  Pres- 
byteries. Finally,  the  Reunion  came,  and  although  the 
meaning  of  the  verse  is  still  most  properly  discussed  by 
theological  professors  in  their  lecture-rooms,  and  by  all  who 
choose  to  do  so,  the  entire  subject  has  been  taken  out  of  the 
realm  of  our  ecclesiastical  disputes.  But  Dr.  Yan  Dyke 
selects  this  very  verse,  and  notwithstanding  this  history, 
puts  it  in  the  Confession.  He  does  nothing  to  help  us 
toward  its  interpretation,  but  (with  the  most  irenic  of 
motives,  I  am  sure)  does  the  one  thing  of  all  best  calculated 
to  reopen  the  ecclesiastical  debate  which  the  Reunion  has 
closed.  He  places  it  in  the  Confession  at  the  point  most 
likely  to  make  Presbyteries,  as  Presbyteries,  discuss  the 
question.  What  does  it  mean  ?  In  view  of  all  this  his- 
tory, I  do  most  earnestly  appeal  to  Dr.  Yan  Dyke,  if  he 
feels  bound  to  propose  an  amendment  on  this  subject,  to 
formulate  another.  Of  course,  if  he  thinks  that  this  verse 
in  any  way  modifies  the  statement  of  the  Catechism,  "  God 
having  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a 
covenant  to  bring  them  into  a  state  of  salvation  by  a  Re- 
deemer," all  will  agree  that  since  the  Reunion  he  is  entitled 
to  hold  that  opinion.  Or  if  he  thinks  the  two  statements 
perfectly  concordant,  he  is  entitled  to  say  so.  But  he  is 
proposing  what  in  my  judgment  is  dangerous,  when  he 
moves  to  insert,  without  interpretation,  in  the  Confession 
an  expression,  which  for  many  years  was  among  us  just 
what  the  Psalter  of  Finnian  was  among  the  Irish,  a  war- 
cry  of  two  opposing  clans. 

2.  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  is  not  sure  that  he  understands  what  I 


28  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

iiieaii  by  the  phrase  ''  ])rivate  opiiiiou,"  and  the  alternative 
phrase  "  a  passing  individual  opinion."  He  is  afraid  that 
unintentionally  I  make  the  phrase  "  palter  in  a  double 
sense."  I  have  no  right  to  complain  of  this  criticism,  fur 
the  use  of  the  word  "  passing  "  was  unfortunate.  It  may 
mean  evanescent.  Probably  this  is  the  idea  that  it  would 
convey  to  most  readers.  But  this  I  did  not  intend  to  con- 
vey. By  "  passing  individual  opinion,"  I  meant  "  current 
individual  opinion,"  and  this,  whether  evanescent  or  per- 
manent, whether  exceptional  or  prevalent. 

With  this  explanation,  let  me  say  that  I  used  the  phrase 
"private"  or  "individual"  opinion  in  its  recognized  and 
technical  sense,  the  sense,  I  mean,  in  which  it  is  contrasted 
with  another  technical  phrase,  dogma  de  fide.  Both 
phrases  have  long  been  used.  Sometimes,  most  often  per- 
haps, the  adjective  "  pious  "  is  employed  by  Koman  Cath- 
olic writers  instead  of  the  adjective  "private"  or  "  indi- 
vidual." But  the  meaning  is  obvious,  and  is  always  the 
same.  There  is,  as  there  must  be,  a  large  and  various  body 
of  opinion  on  theological  subjects,  formed  by  the  devout 
or  "pious,"  and  "private"  or  "individual"  study  of 
learned  men.  These  opinions  are  allowed  by  the  Church. 
Never  having  been  erected  into  "  dogmas  of  the  faith," 
never  having  been  "defined"  as  doctrines  and  given  a 
place  in  the  creed,  they  are  still  only  "  private  "  or  "  pious  " 
opinions.  Some  of  them  are  held  by  only  a  few  theologians. 
Others  are  prevalent.  Some  are  likely  to  prove  evanes- 
cent ;  others  to  be  permanent.  Usually  they  are  derived, 
not  from  explicit  statements  of  Scripture,  but  from  what 
those  holding  them  believe  to  be  implicated  in  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Word  of  God. 

In  this  sense  of  the  phrase,  the  belief  that  "  all  who  die 
in  infancy  are  saved"  is,  with  us,  a  "private"  or  "pious" 
opinion.     Nor  would  it  be  other  than  a  private  opinion,  if 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  29 

it  could  be  shown  that  every  individual  in  the  Church  be- 
lieved it.  For  each  individual  throughout  the  Church  is 
at  liberty  as  an  individual  to  hold  or  reject  it.  But  put  it 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  it  will  be  a  private  opinion 
no  longer ;  it  will  be  a  dogma  de  fide.  Our  liberty  of 
opinion  on  this  subject  will  then  be  gone.  Hope,  expecta- 
tion, supposition,  and  all  other  states  of  mind  in  respect  to 
dead  infants,  except  assent  to  their  salvation,  will  be  utterly 
out  of  place.  If  I  have  made  my  meaning  clear,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  whenever  a  ''  private  opinion  "  is  made  "  a  dogma 
of  the  faith,"  by  being  "  defined  "  and  placed  in  the  creed, 
the  creed  in  which  it  is  placed  is,  so  far  forth,  narrower  or 
less  liberal  than  it  was  before. 

I  am  glad  that  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  has  given  me  the  oppor- 
tunity to  explain  my  meaning  in  detail.  As  the  Church  is 
bound  to  discuss  this  question  of  revision,  there  is  no  dis- 
tinction more  important  to  be  remembered  just  now  than 
the  distinction  between  a  "  private  opinion  "  and  "  a  dogma 
of  the  faith."  The  very  strongest  reasons  should  be  an- 
nounced and  sifted  and  abide  the  sifting  before  the  opinion 
is  permitted  to  be  defined  as  a  dogma.  The  change  ought 
not  to  be  made  without  the  clearest  and  most  explicit  war- 
rant of  Scripture.  We  Presbyterian  ministers  and  elders 
are  doubly  fortunate,  first,  in  possessing  a  creed  composed 
by  men  who  understood  thoroughly  this  distinction ;  and 
secondly,  in  a  form  of  subscription  which  places  us  in 
''  genial  relations  "  to  the  creed  itself. 

Eorae  understands  and  has  carefully  observed  this  dis- 
tinction. If  there  is  a  church,  which,  on  its  theory  and  by 
its  constitution,  is  in  a  position  to  multiply  dogmas,  it  is  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  It  possesses  an  inspired  "  Yicar 
of  Christ,"  and  it  possesses  also  a  vast  body  of  "  tradition," 
on  which  it  could  draw  for  this  very  purpose.  One  might 
well  have  prophesied  that  its  activity  in  their  multiplication 


30  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

would  be  greater  tluin  that  of  the  wliole  of  Christendom 
except  itself.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  of  which 
Lord  Macaulaj  long  ago  said,  "There  is  not,  and  there 
never  was,  on  this  earth  a  work  of  human  policy  so  well 
deserving  of  examination,"  has  been  most  sagaciously  care- 
ful in  its  exercise  of  this  tremendous  power.  Since  the 
Council  of  Trent  was  dissolved  three  centuries  ago,  oidy 
two  "  pious  o})inions "  have  been  defined  as  "  dogmas  of 
the  faith."  The  debates  between  Franciscan  and  Domini- 
can, between  Scotist  and  Thomist,  often  in  the  thirteenth 
century  raged  around  the  question  of  the  "  Innnaculate 
Conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  From  tliat  date  un- 
til 1S54 — a  period  of  five  centuries  of  active  discussion 
— when  it  was  "defined"  as  a  dogma  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  the  question  was  left  to  be  answered  by  private 
and  pious  opinion.  So  was  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
until  1870. 

But  Eome  has  not  furnished  the  model  for  our  active 
and  ardent  revisers.  There  is  another  religious  body,  how- 
ever, to  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  this  particu- 
lar presents  a  striking  and  instructive  contrast.  This  re- 
ligious body  has  a  head  like  the  head  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  But,  lacking  a  vast  body  of  tradition,  it  has  been 
accustomed  to  supply  that  deficiency  by  an  almost  annual 
addition  to  its  "  dogmas  of  the  faith."  I  am  vividly  re- 
minded, by  the  lightness  and  gaiety  with  which  so  many 
of  my  brethren  are  entering  on  the  work  of  Confessional 
revision,  of  the  abounding  activity  in  the  same  direction  of 
the  Apostles  and  Chief  Revelator  of  the  Church  of  the 
Latter-Day  Saints,  commonly  called  Mormons. 

3.  Having  made  clear,  I  trust,  why  I  object  to  Dr. 
Yan  Dyke's  amendment,  and  what  I  mean  by  "private 
opinion,"  I  wish,  before  concluding  this  letter,  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  remarkable  diversities  of  attitude  among  writers 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISIOlSf.  31 

favorable  to  revision  as  thej  appear  on  the  pages  of  the 
Evangelist  this  very  week. 

Here,  first,  is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dulles,  who  wishes  the  Con- 
fession revised  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  "  a  living  one  "; 
but  who  has  no  confidence  in  "patching"  the  present  Con- 
fession— indeed,  in  nothing  short  of  a  new  Confession, 
which  shall  express  "  what  we  now  believe."  Here,  sec- 
ondly, is  a  letter  wliich  endorses  the  article  of  Elder  Henry 
Day,  who  tells  us  that  if  he  must  find  a  reason  for  the  de- 
cree of  God,  he  will  find  it  in  the  foresight  of  faith.  Here, 
thirdly,  is  my  valued  friend  Dr.  Yan  Dyke,  who  is  against 
all  such  Arminianism,  but  who  would  also  remove  "  the 
supralapsarian  bias "  from  the  Confession,  and  who 
would  insert  the  statement,  "  All  infants  d^dng  in  infancy 
are  saved."  And  here,  finally,  is  my  dear  and  honored 
Professor,  Dr.  Duffield,  of  Princeton  College,  who  will 
not  allow  Dr.  Van  Dyke  his  dogma  concerning  all  who  die 
in  infancy,  but  who  is  ready  to  knock  out  "  the  supralap- 
sarian bias "  from  our  most  logical  Confession,  though  he 
quotes  without  disapproval  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge's  remark  that 
''  supralapsarianism  is  the  most  logical  scheme." 

Here  is  a  diversity  of  tongues,  indeed.  Shall  I  say  that 
it  recalls  the  story  of  what  once  occurred  on  the  plain  of 
Shinar  ?  In  the  midst  of  it  I  take  my  stand  on  the  plat- 
form so  finely  formulated  by  Prof.  Warfield,  of  Princeton, 
and  I  beg  to  close  my  letter  by  quoting  a  portion  of  his 
most  admirable  paper : 

"Our  free,  but  safe,  formula  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  by  which 
we  *  receive  and  adopt  it,'  as  '  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,'  relieves  us  of  all  necessity  for  seeking  each 
man  to  conform  the  Confession,  in  all  its  propositions,  to  his  individual 
preferences,  and  enables  us  to  treat  the  Confession  as  a  public  docu- 
ment, designed,  not  to  bring  each  of  our  idiosyncrasies  to  expression, 
but  to  express  the  general  and  common  faith  of  the  whole  body,  which 
it  adequately  and  admirably  does. 


32  roXFKSSlOXAL   llEVIt^IOX. 

"  Enjoying  this  free,  yet  hearty  relation  to  the  Confession,  we  con- 
sider that  our  situation  toward  our  Standards  is  incapable  of  improve, 
ment.  However  much  or  little  the  Confession  were  altered,  we  could 
not,  as  a  body,  accept  the  altered  Confession  in  a  closer  sense  than  for 
system  of  doctrine  ;  and  the  alteration  could  not  better  it  as  a  public 
confession,  however  much  it  might  be  made  a  closer  expression  of  the 
faith  of  some  individuals  among  us.  In  any  case  it  could  not  be  made, 
in  all  its  propositions  and  forms  of  statement,  the  exact  expression  of 
the  personal  faith  of  each  one  of  our  thousands  of  standard-bearers." 

John  De  Witt. 
The  Hill  :  Danyille,  Pa.,  July  20,  1889. 


/ 


YI. 

iKEPLICATION    OF    DK.  YAJST  DYKE   TO  DE. 
DE  WITT. 


It  is  wonderful  how  much  our  judgment  of  things  de- 
pends  upon  the  side  from  which  we  look  at  them.  I  have 
Ueen  greatly  impressed  with  what  seemed  to  me  a  remark- 
alljle  agreement  among  the  advocates  of  Revision.  With- 
(but  any  consultation,  they  are  in  substantial  accord  as  to  the 
.  things  that  need  amendment ;  differing  chiefly  in  the  forms 
fof  changes  wliich  have  been  offered  as  mere  suggestions. 
IBut  here  comes  the  Evangelist  of  July  25th,  in  whicli 
lL)r.  De  Witt  declares  himself  equally  impressed  with  "the 
rjemarkable  diversities  of  attitude  among  writers  favorable 
tfo  Ee vision."  He  thinks  this  diversity  amounts  to  a  con- 
fusion of  tongues,  like  that  on  the  plains  of  Shinar.  He 
detects  a  likeness  between  the  advocates  of  Eevision,  and 
the  ''  abounding  activity  in  the  same  direction  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Chief  Eevelator  of  the  Church  of  the  Latter-Day 
Saints,  commonly  called  Mormons."  He  draws  an  unfa- 
vorable contrast  between  their  desire  for  change  and  tbo 
conservatism  of  the  Church  of  Eome,  which  in  the  three 
centuries  since  the  Council  of  Trent  has  "  defined  only  two 
pious  opinions  into  dogmas  of  the  faith."  Let  me  assure 
my  good  brother  that  I  have  too  much  respect  for  him,  and 
am  too  tenderly  interested  in  the  subject  we  are  discussing,  to 
be  ruffled  by  these  invidious,  not  to  say  odious,  comparisons. 
I  only  wonder  at  them,  and  at  the  course  of  argument 
to  which  they  belong,  which  seems  to  me  at  variance  with 

(33) 


34  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

the  spirit  of  Protestantism  and  of  the  Presbyterian  Chnrcl 
It  smells  of  the  Dark  Ages,  and  has  the  ear-marks  of  the 
Schoolmen.    Doubtless  the  difference  between  Dr.  De  AViti 
and  myself  is  due  to  our  different  angles  of  vision.     But  I 
know  not  whether  to  call  his  angle  acute  or  obtuse,  wher 
one  of  the  four  witnesses  he  summons  to  prove  the  confu 
sion  of  tongues  among  the  friends  of  Revision,  is  openly 
opposed  to  what  he  calls  ''patching  up  the  Old  Confes 
sion,"  and  in  favor  rather  of  making  a  new  one ;  though  it 
is  due  to  him  to  say  that  he  claims  to  be  exceptionallj/ 
orthodox  in  preaching  the  doctrines  of  the  Old.     Of  thj  e 
other  three  witnesses,  one  is  a  layman  and  a  lawyer,  ani d 
uses  popular  rather  than  technical  language ;   but  Dr.  Dl^ 
Witt  may  rest  assured  that  there  is  no  substantial  differencol 
between  Mr.  Day,  Dr.  Duffield,  and  myself ;   for  we  aP 
hold  the  Calvinistic  as  opposed  to  the  Arminian  system  o^  t 
doctrine,  and  are  loyal  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  accord  1- 
ing  to  our  ordination  vows.  ' 

But  suppose  the  diversity  of  our  views  were  as  great  a  9 
it  is  represented,  is  it  greater  than  what  existed  in  tin  3 
Westminster  Assembly  ?     JSTone  knows  better  than  Dr.  Dt3 
Witt  how  long  and  earnest  were  the  debates  in  that  Assemi- 
bly ;  how  many  of  their  doctrinal  statements  were  compro- 
mises of  conflicting  opinions  (notably  the  one  about  "  eledf" 
infants  ") ;   and  by  how  small  a  majority  some  of  the  arti- 
cles were  adopted.     And  yet  the  result  was  a  Confession 
which  some  of  the  opponents  of  Revision  regard  as  so  per- 
fect that  after  two  centuries  and  a  half  of  study  it  is  inca- 
pable of  improvement ;   and  so  they  join  hands  with  those 
who  desire,  by  keeping  it  unchanged,  to  break  down  the 
restraints   of    subscription,    and    practically   to   make   the 
grand  old  creed  simply  a  historic  monument  of  the  past. 
]>ut  inasmuch  as  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God  are  given  to 
us  even  as  to  the  Westminster  divines,  is  it  not  reasonable 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  36 

to  hope  that  the  Revision  of  our  Creed  will  lead  to  as  good 
results  in  the  nineteenth  century  as  it  did  in  the  seven- 
teenth ? 

How  fatal  is  the  force  and  fallacy  of  words.  We  may 
not  adopt  the  maxim  that  language  is  intended  to  conceal 
thought ;  but  certainly  it  often  fails  to  convey  the  writer's 
meaning,  even  in  the  hands  of  such  a  trained  master  of 
sentences  as  Dr.  De  Witt.  After  much  reflection  and  con- 
sultation of  dictionaries,  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  by 
"  private  opinions  "  my  courteous  opponent  meant  opinions 
held  by  very  few  and  not  generally  accepted,  especially  as 
he  used  the  parallel  expression  "passing  individual  opin- 
ions," and  protested  against  imposing  such  private  opinions 
upon  the  conscience  of  the  whole  Church.  It  is  true  I 
had  ghmpses  of  another  meaning,  but  was  unwilling  to  at- 
tribute it  to  him,  because  it  would  utterly  destroy  the  force 
and  relevancy  of  his  argument.  But  in  this  I  was  com- 
pletely mistaken.  By  "  private  opinion ''  Dr.  De  Witt  now 
tells  us  he  means  "  a  pious  opinion,"  however  widely  held, 
as  distinguished  from  a  dogma  de  fide  (dogma  of  the  faith) 
recognized  and  defined  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and 
incorporated  into  its  creed,  after  the  manner  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  "defining"  the  immaculate  concep- 
tion of  Mary  and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  We  think 
the  illustration  an  unfortunate  one,  but  let  that  pass.  IS'ow 
we  understand  each  other.  Dr.  De  Witt  has  a  right  to 
amend  his  pleading,  and  I  accept  the  amendment.  If  he 
had  done  this  at  first,  it  would  have  saved  a  great  deal  of 
printer's  ink.  I  admit  fully  that  all  the  amendments  to  the 
Confession  which  have  been  proposed  are  "pious  opin- 
ions," not  yet  "  defined  "  and  incorporated  into  our  Creed 
by  the  authority  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  If  they 
were  there  already,  who  would  desire  to  put  them  there  ? 
But  with  this   understanding,  what  becomes  of  Dr.  De 


36  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

Witt's  argument  against  the  proposed  amendments  upon 
the  ground  that  they  are  "  private  opinions  "  ^  It  is  a  bald 
he<j(jing  of  the  question  under  discussion,  and  amounts  to 
an  indi\adual  assertion  that  these  amendments  ought  not  to 
he  adopted^  because  they  ay^e  not  already  in  the  Confession 
— only  this  and  nothing  more.  And  the  same  remark  ap- 
pHes  to  tlie  passage  which  my  learned  friend  adopts  and 
eulogizes  from  Dr.  Warfield,  provided  of  course  he  uses 
the  terms  "  personal  opinions,"  "  individual  preferences," 
and  "idiosyncrasies,"  in  the  sense  defined  by  Dr.  De  Witt 
of  "  pious  opinions  "  not  yet  authorized  by  Church  author- 
ity. But  if  he  uses  these  terms  in  the  common  and  pop- 
ular meaning,  we  deny  that  any  friend  of  revision  desires 
to  put  his  private  opinions  or  idiosyncrasies  into  the  Con- 
fession. As  to  the  proposition  that  our  liberal  terms  of 
subscription  render  any  revision  unnecessary,  it  is  alto- 
gether aside  from  the  question  before  us.  No  friend  of  re- 
vision complains  that  the  Church  is  too  strictly  bound  to 
her  creed  ;  we  have  all  the  liberty  in  that  respect  which  we 
desire.  But  our  contention  is  that  the  creed  does  not  with 
sufficient  clearness  express  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  cer- 
tain specified  particulars. 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  most  important  part  of  Dr. 
De  Witt's  article — to  the  crucial  point  in  this  whole  dis- 
cussion. In  response  to  my  friend's  challenge,  I  ventured 
to  formulate  a  statement  to  be  inserted  in  the  chapter  on 
the  Decrees,  in  these  words ; 

"  God's  eternal  decree  hindereth  no  one  from  accepting  Christ  as  He 
is  freely  offered  to  us  in  the  Gospel  ;  nor  ought  it  to  be  so  construed 
as  to  contradict  the  declarations  of  Scripture  that  Christ  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  God  is  not  willing  that 
any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance." 

Dr.  De  Witt  rejects  and  condemns  this  amendment  on 
two  grounds : 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  87 

1.  Because  it  is  expressed  chieflj  in  Scripture  languaf^e. 
He  affirms  that  "  being  clothed  in  Scriptui-e  hinguage,  it 
violates  the  fundameutal,  constitutive,  and  historic  idea  of 
a  creed  statement.''  I  know  not  by  what  authority  this 
canon  was  enacted,  nor  where  it  is  recorded ;  but  I  do 
know  that  it  has  been  more  honored  in  the  breach  than  in 
the  observance.  The  Apostles'  Creed  is  a  beautiful  mosaic 
of  Scripture  phrases,  without  note  or  comment;  and  our 
own  Confession  contains  many  creed  statements  which  Dr. 
De  Witt,  to  be  consistent,  ought  to  condemn.  I  refer  him 
to  chap,  ii.,  sec.  1 ;  chap,  vii.,  sec.  3 ;  chap,  xvi.,  sec.  2 ; 
chap,  xxiii.,  sec.  1 ;  chap,  xxxiii.,  sec.  1.  These  and  many 
other  passages  are  clothed  in  Scripture  language  as  thor- 
oughly as  my  proposed  amendment. 

2.  Dr.  De  Witt  condemns  and  starts  back  in  alarm  from 
my  amendment,  because  it  contains  "  one  of  the  most  often 
quoted  and  debated  verses  in  the  long  and  unhappy  contro- 
versy "  between  the  Old  and  J^ew  Schools,  the  entire  sub- 
ject of  which  verse,  he  tells  us,  "  has  been  taken  out  of  the 
realm  of  our  ecclesiastical  disputes."  He  thinks  to  put 
that  verse  into  the  Confession  would  be  ^'dangerous";  it 
would  become  again,  what  he  says  it  was  before,  like  "  the 
Psalter  of  Finnian  among  the  Irish  clans."  He  appeals  to 
me,  if  I  feel  bound  to  propose  an  amendment,  to  formulate 
another,  omitting  this  dangerous  text,  which  he  seems  to 
regard  as  a  dynamite  bombshell.  I  feel  the  force  of  his 
appeal,  and  respect,  though  I  do  not  sympathize  with,  his 
fears.  ''  Peace,  brother ;  be  not  over-exquisite  to  cast  the 
fashion  of  uncertain  evil."  According  to  my  recollections 
of  that  old  controversy,  which  are  probably  more  vivid 
than  his  own,  not  only  this,  but  every  other  verse  of  Scrip- 
ture relating  to  the  doctrines  of  grace,  were  often  quoted 
and  earnestly  debated.  That  controversy,  however  we 
may  regret  the  bitterness  and  division  to  which  it  led,  was 


38  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

not  altogetlier  eWl  in  its  results.  Our  danger  now  does 
not  lie  in  the  direction  of  theological  controversy,  but  in 
indifference  to  doctrinal  truth,  by  which  "the  streaming 
fountain  of  God's  Word  sickens  into  a  muddy  pool  of  con- 
formity and  tradition."  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  the  Ke- 
uiiion  has  relegated  any  verse  in  Scripture  to  the  realm  of 
private  and  pious  opinion.  The  Bible  itself  is  ovlY  primary 
standard  of  faith  and  practice ;  the  Confession  is  only  sec- 
ondary /  and  I  do  not  believe  that  the  transference  of  any 
text  from  the  first  to  the  second  place,  would  imperil  our 
peace. 

But  now  I  do  not  insist  upon  the  precise  wording  of  my 
amendment,  as  was  clearly  stated  when  it  was  first  pro- 
posed. It  is  the  thing^  and  not  the  form^  that  I  contend 
for.  It  is  a  sad  fact,  and  a  grief  to  many  hearts  besides  my 
own,  that  our  Confession  does  not  contain  one  declaration 
of  the  infinite  love  of  God  to  men,  nor  one  declaration  of 
what  every  Presbyterian,  Old  School  or  New,  devoutly  be- 
lieves, that  Christ's  sacrifice  for  sin  is  sufficient  for  all, 
adapted  to  all,  and  offered  to  all.  We  also  believe  that 
this  fullness  of  the  Gospel  and  its  free  offer,  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  all  that  our  Confession  and  Catechisms 
teach  about  election  and  redemption,  the  assertions  of 
Arminians  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  If  it  is  only 
the  language  of  my  amendment  that  offends  and  alarms 
my  brother,  let  him  find  more  acceptable  words,  express- 
ing the  same  ideas,  and  I  will  adopt  them.  But  if  he  ob- 
jects to  making  this  universally  received  "pious  opinion" 
a  dogma  of  the  faith,  then  indeed  we  do  differ  so  widely 
that  no  creed  statement  or  subscription  can  bridge  over  the 
chasm. 

Henry  J.  Yan  Dyke. 


VII. 

THE  PKESBYTERY  OF  NEW  BEUNSWICK  AND 
THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION. 

At  the  June  intermediate  meeting  of  the  Preshytery  of 
New  Brunswick,  held  on  June  25th  at  Dutch  Neck,  the 
overture  of  the  General  Assembly  anent  the  revision  of  the 
Cmifession  of  Faith  was  answered  in  the  negative,  nemine 
contradicente,  as  foUows : 

*'  The  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  having  carefully 
considered  the  overture  in  relation  to  the  revision  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  proposed  by  the  General  Assembly, 
respectfully  replies  as  follows : 

"This  Presbytery  does  not  desire  any  revision  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith." 

The  reasons  to  be  assigned  for  this  answer,  as  proposed  in 
a  paper  presented  by  Prof.  B.  B.  Warfield,  were  then  taken 
up ;  but,  on  account  of  lack  of  time  for  full  consideration, 
were  laid  over  until  the  October  meeting  of  the  Presbytery. 
These  reasons  have  been  printed  by  order  of  the  Presbytery, 
that  all  who  are  interested  may  have  opportunity  to  consider 
them  before  the  Fall  meeting.     They  are  as  follows : 

1.  Our  free  but  safe  formula  of  acceptance  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  by  which  we  "  receive  and  adopt  it "  as 
"containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  "  (Form  of  Government,  XY.,  xii.),  relieves  us 
of  all  necessity  for  seeking,  each  one  to  conform  the  Con- 
fession in  all  its  propositions  to  his  individual  preferences, 
and  enables  us  to  treat  the  Confession  as  a  public  document, 

(39) 


40  CONFESSIOI^AL   REVISION. 

designed,  not  to  bring  each  of  onr  idiosyncrasies  to  expres- 
yion,  but  to  express  the  general  and  common  faith  of  the 
whole  body — whicli  it  adequately  and  admirably  does. 

2.  Enjoying  this  free  yet  hearty  relation  to  the  Confession, 
we  consider  that  our  situation  toward  our  Standards  is  inca- 
pable of  improvement.  However  much  or  little  the  Confes- 
sion were  altered,  we  could  not,  as  a  body,  accept  the  altered 
Confession  in  a  closer  sense  than  for  system  of  doctrine ; 
and  the  alterations  could  not  better  it  as  a  public  Confession, 
however  much  it  might  be  made  a  closer  expression  of  the 
faith  of  some  individuals  among  us.  In  any  case,  it  could 
not  be  made,  in  all  its  propositions  and  forms  of  statement, 
the  exact  expression  of  the  personal  faith  of  each  one  of  our 
thousands  of  office-bearers. 

3.  In  these  circumstances  we  are  unwilling  to  mar  the 
integrity  of  so  venerable  and  admirable  a  document,  in  the 
mere  license  of  change,  without  prospect  of  substantially 
bettering  our  relation  to  it  or  its  fitness  to  serve  as  an  ade- 
quate statement  of  the  system  of  doctrine  which  we  all 
heartily  believe.  The  historical  character  and  the  hereditary 
value  of  the  creed  should,  in  such  a  case,  be  preserved. 

4.  We  have  no  hope  of  bettering  the  Confession,  either 
in  the  doctrines  it  states  or  in  tlie  manner  in  which  they  are 
stated.  When  we  consider  the  guardedness,  moderation, 
fullness,  lucidity,  and  catholicity  of  its  statement  of  the 
Augiistinian  system  of  truth,  and  of  the  several  doctrines 
which  enter  into  it,  we  are  convinced  that  the  Westminster 
Confession  is  the  best,  safest  and  most  acceptable  statement 
of  the  truths  and  the  system  which  we  most  surely  believe 
that  has  ever  been  formulated ;  and  we  despair  of  making 
any  substantial  improvements  upon  its  forms  of  sound  words. 
On  this  account  we  not  only  do  not  desire  changes  on  our 
own  account,  but  should  look  with  doubt  and  apprehension 
upon  any  efforts  to  hnprove  upon  it  by  tlie  Church. 


CONFESSIONAL    KEVISION.  41 

5.  The  moderate,  catholic,  and  irenical  character  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  has  always  made  it  a  unifying  doc- 
ument. Framed  as  an  irenicon,  it  bound  at  once  the  Scotch 
and  English  Churches  together ;  it  was  adopted  and  contin- 
ues to  be  used  by  many  Congregational  and  Baptist  Churches 
as  the  confession  of  their  faith;  with  its  accompanying 
Catechisms  it  has  lately  been  made  the  basis  of  union  be- 
tween the  two  great  Presbyterian  bodies  which  united  to 
constitute  our  Church  ;  and  w^e  are  convinced  that  if  Pres- 
byterian union  is  to  go  further,  it  nmst  be  on  the  basis  of 
the  Westminster  Standards,  pure  and  simple.  In  the  inter- 
ests of  Church  union,  therefore,  as  in  the  interests  of  a  broad 
and  irenical,  moderate  and  catholic  Calvinism,  we  deprecate 
any  changes  in  our  historical  standards,  to  the  system  of 
doctrine  contained  in  which  we  unabatedly  adhere,  and  with 
the  forms  of  statement  of  which  we  find  ourselves  in  hearty 
accord. 


YIIL 

DK.  YA'N    DYKE    ON    THE    ACTION    OF   THE 
NEW  BKUNSWICK  PRESBYTERY. 

The  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  in  an- 
swer to  the  overture  of  the  General  Assembly  on  revision, 
viz. :  "  This  Presbytery  does  not  desire  any  revision  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,"  together  with  a  paper  presented  by 
Dr.  Warfield,  giving  reasons  for  that  answer,  laid  over  for 
future  action,  has  been  widely  circulated  among  the  min- 
isters of  our  Church.  However  complete  this  document 
may  be,  as  a  summary  of  what  can  be  said  against  the  re- 
vision of  our  Confession,  it  does  not  fairly  represent  the 
views  of  those  who  are  on  the  other  side  of  the  question. 
The  following  statements  are  therefore  submitted  to  the 
candid  judgment  of  all  interested  in  the  subject : 

I.  The  o])ject  of  the  proposed  revision  is  not  to  change 
the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  our  Confession,  nor  to  re- 
pudiate, modify,  or  dilute  any  one  doctrine  of  that  system, 
nor  to  "  conform  the  Confession  in  all  its  propositions  to 
individual  preferences,"  nor  to  "bring  each  of  our  idio- 
syncrasies to  expression."  We  repudiate  all  such  interpre- 
tations of  our  purpose.  Our  simple  object  is — by  the  cor- 
rection of  certain  ambiguities,  omissions,  and  mistaken  in- 
terpretations of  Scripture — to  bring  our  Confession  into 
more  perfect  harmony  with  other  Reformed  Confessions, 
and  to  make  it  more  complete  as  the  expression  "of  the 
general  and  common  faith  of  the  whole  body  "  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.        ^ 

II.  The  proposition  that  such  a  revision  is  impracticable 

(42) 


CONFESSIONAL  EEVISION.  43 

can  be  maintained  only  on  one  of  two  grounds :  (1)  That 
the  work  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  is  perfect  in  itself, 
and  in  its  adaptation  to  all  time;  or  (2)  that  after  two 
centuries  and  a  half  of  Bible  study,  and  two  centuries  of 
tlieological  training,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  less  able 
now  to  give  adequate  expression  to  her  faith  than  she  was 
in  the  days  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Both  these 
hypotheses  are  absurd. 

III.  The  proposition  that  revision  is  unnecessary,  in  view 
of  ''  our  free  but  safe  formula  of  acceptance  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,"  is  disproved  by  three  patent  facts :  (1)  Fif- 
teen presbyteries  have  petitioned  tlie  Assembly  for  such  a 
revision,  and  it  is  well  known  that  these  presbyteries  em- 
brace but  a  small  part  of  those  who  favor  the  movement. 

(2)  Some  of  the  arguments  opposed  to  revision  are  among 
the  strongest  proofs  of  its  necessity.  We  call  the  attention 
of  our  brethren  to  tlie  article  on  this  subject  by  Dr.  Brigge, 
in  the  last  number  of  the  Presbyterian  Remew,  and  espe- 
cially to  the  following  sentences :  "  I  agree  with  Dr.  War- 
field  that  the  true  relief  for  a  church  that  finds  itself  too 
strictly  bound  to  a  creed,  is  simply  to  amend  the  strictness 
of  the  formula  of  subscription.  I  am  in  favor  of  sncli  a 
movement  in  preference  to  revision,  or  a  new  creed,  or  a 
declaratory  act."  Dr.  Briggs  clearly  discerns  the  alterna- 
tive presented  to  us,  and  because  we  desire  to  relieve  the 
consciences  of  those  fifteen  presbyteries  and  their  sym- 
pathizers, without  such  "a  comprehension"  as  he  advo- 
cates, we  are  heartily  in  favor  of  the  proposed  revision. 

(3)  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  our  Confession  is  not 
merely  the  standard  and  test  of  ministerial  orthodoxy ;  it 
is  a  public  document,  the  proclamation  to  the  world  of 
what  the  Presbyterian  Church  now  believes.  If  it  con- 
tains, or  even  appears  to  contain,  anything  which  the  whole 
body  repudiates,  or  if  it  fails  to  embrace  anything  which 


44  CONFESSIONAL  REVISIOIST. 

Presbyterians,  and  Cliristians  generally,  accept  as  an  essen- 
tial element  of  the  Gospel  which  we  preach,  it  ought  in 
these  respects  to  be  amended,  without  regard  to  the  terms 
of  clerical  subscription.  The  Church  is  more  than  the 
ministry. 

IV.  Ko  one  is  competent  to  predict,  much  less  to  dic- 
tate, the  precise  form  and  extent  of  the  revision,  if  it  shall 
])e  accomplished.  The  amendments  which  have  been  pro- 
posed, or  may  yet  be  proposed,  by  individuals,  or  by  pres- 
byteries, are  simph^  suggestions.  If  among  them  there 
shall  be  found  any  "  individual  preferences,"  or  "  idiosyn- 
crasies," the  fact  that  they  are  private  opinions  will  neces- 
sarily prevent  their  adoption.  But  among  the  suggestions 
already  made  there  are  three  which  fully  demonstrate  the 
necessity  and  practicability  of  revision. 

(1).  It  is  the  common  faith  of  the  whole  Presbyterian 
Church,  as  now  constituted,  and  of  the  Reformers,  as  ex- 
pressed in  creeds  more  venerable  than  the  Westminster 
Confession,  that  God  foreordains  men  to  eternal  death 
simply  and  solely  for  their  sins.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says, 
in  his  "Consensus  of  the  Reformed  Confessions":  "It  is 
no  part  of  the  Reformed  faith  that  God  created  men  in 
order  to  damn  them,  nor  that  His  treatment  of  the  lost  is 
to  be  referred  to  His  sovereign  will.  He  condemns  men 
only  as  judge,  for  their  siiis,  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious 
justice"  {Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  v.,  p.  295).  In  order 
to  make  the  confession  of  our  faith  more  explicit  on  this 
point,  and  to  take  away  all  pretext  for  the  charge  that  we 
hold  the  contrary  doctrine,  it  is  proposed  to  amend  the 
third  section  of  the  tln'rd  chapter,  by  inserting  the  words 
for  their  sins.  Will  any  opponent  of  revision  maintain 
that  the  addition  of  these  words  would  mar  the  integrity  of 
our  Confession,  or  graft  an  "idiosyncrasy"  upon  this  pub- 
lic document? 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  45 

(2).  The  whole  body  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  beheve 
that  all  infante  dying  in  infancy  are  elect,  and  therefore 
regenerated  and  saved.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says  this  "  is 
the  general  belief  of  Protestants,  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Romanists  and  Eomanizers"  ("  Theology,"  vol.  i., 
p.  27).  It  is  proposed  to  put  the  expression  of  this  com- 
mon faith  into  our  Confession.  Does  any  one  say  that  it  is 
there  by  implication  already  ?  Then  we  ought  to  relieve 
troubled  consciences  and  silence  gain  say  ers  by  stating  it 
explicitly.  Does  any  one  say  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in- 
fants is  only  a  pious  hope,  suggested,  but  not  clearly  taught, 
in  Scripture?  The  advocates  of  revision  do  not  believe 
this ;  but  if  it  is  the  common  faith  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  then  we  insist  that  our  Confession  ought  to  stand 
clearly  neutral  on  the  subject,  and  no  longer  sanction  the 
popular  impression  that  we  hold  the  abhorrent  doctrine  of 
the  damnation  of  infants  by  the  ambiguous  phrase  "  elect 
infants  dying  in  infancy." 

(3).  It  is  the  common  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  body,  and 
of  the  whole  visible  Church  of  Christ,  that  the  salvation 
of  the  Gospel  is  sufficient  for  all  men,  adapted  to  all,  and 
freely  offered  to  all,  and  that  the  eternal  decree  of  God 
hinders  no  one  from  accepting  it.  The  Scriptures  are  full 
of  proof-texts  to  sustain  this  proposition.  It  underlies  and 
pervades  all  our  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  is  the  con- 
straining motive  in  all  the  aggressive  work  of  the  Church. 
And  yet  there  is  not,  in  all  our  Confession,  one  declaration 
which  clearly  comprehends  or  alludes  to  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture on  this  point.  The  advocates  of  revision  desire  to 
amend  the  Confession  in  this  particular.  As  to  the  asser- 
tion that  it  is  not  possil)le  to  frame  a  new  statement  on  this 
subject  which  will  correlate  with  the  Confession  as  it  is,  or 
which  will  not  mar  the  historic  integrity  of  the  venerable 
document ;  this  is  just  what  the  enemies  of  our  Calvinistic 


46  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

system  have  always  said,  and  what  Calvinists  have  always 
denied.  If  the  writer  of  this  paper  believed  what  has  been 
said  on  this  point  by  the  opponents  of  revision,  he  would 
renounce  the  Confession  as  his  standard,  for  the  fullness 
and  freeness  of  the  Gospel  is  more  precious  to  him  than 
any  historic  monument.  But  he  does  not  believe  it.  He 
has  always  read  into  the  Confession,  as  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  system  of  doctrine  which  it  contains,  the  Scripture 
declarations  that  Christ  is  "  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,"  and  that  "  God  is  not  willing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance."  To 
relieve  troubled  consciences,  to  satisfy  candid  opposers  of 
our  system  of  doctrine,  to  promote  the  ultimate  unification 
of  the  visible  Church,  which  can  never  be  accomplished 
upon  any  other  basis,  it  is  proposed  to  put  into  our  Confession 
what  we  all  believe  concerning  the  fullness  and  freeness  of 
the  Gospel,  in  its  sufficiency,  adaptation,  and  offers  to  all 
men.  It  would  be  easy  to  suggest  the  form  and  place  of 
the  amendment,  but  it  is  enough  for  the  present  to  insist 
upon  its  necessity  and  practicability. 

Henry  J.  Yan  Dyke. 


IX. 


PEOF.   WAKFIELD'S   EEPLY  TO  DE.  VAN 
DYKE. 

I  HAVE  read  with  great  interest  the  criticisms  upon  the 
paper  which  was  presented  bj  me  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Brunswick,  with  which  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  has  honored 
me  in  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  of  July  31st.  If  I  cor- 
rectly understand  the  drift  of  Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  remarks,  he 
argues  that  revision  of  the  Confession  is  necessary ;  and  he 
is  willing  to  rest  this  alleged  necessity  on  three  criticisms 
of  the  Confession,  which  he  states.  It  does  not  seem 
proper  for  me  to  pass  these  suggestions  by  without  remark, 
and  the  less  so,  that  the  three  points  which  Dr.  Yan  Dyke 
has  singled  out  are  those  which  have  been  most  frequently 
dwelt  upon  by  those  who  advocate  revision.  We  may  hope, 
then,  that  if  these  do  not  prove  adequate  reasons  for  un- 
dertaking the  task,  it  may  be  admitted  that  there  is  little 
serious  call  for  it  in  the  churches. 

Probably,  however,  before  entering  into  a  discussion  of 
these  test  criticisms,  I  ought  to  say  a  word  in  general 
about  the  New  Brunswick  paper,  which  has  furnished  oc- 
casion for  Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  article.  Let  this  be  as  brief  as 
possible.  That  paper  was  intended  to  bring  together  what  is, 
in  essence,  a  threefold  argument  against  the  necessity  of 
revision — an  argument  which,  and  only,  if  founded  on  facts, 
ought  to  prevail.  It  was  intended  to  urge  the  following 
points,  viz. :  (1)  Revision  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  ease 
the  consciences  of  our  office-bearers  in  accepting  the  Con- 
fession ;  (2)  it  is  not  needed  in  order  to  correct  any  serious 

(47) 


48  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

infelicities  in  expressing  the  doctrines  we  profess ;  and  (3) 
it  will  throw  difficulties  in  the  waj  of  the  realization  of 
hopes  of  church  union,  already  being  entertained  by  the 
Church.  In  all  this  there  is  no  claim  to  perfection  and  in- 
fallibility for  the  Confession ;  there  is  no  arraignment  of 
the  right  or  power  of  the  Church  to  undertake  it.  The 
question  is  a  question  of  expediency.  The  point  is,  Does 
the  Confession  need  revision  in  order  to  ease  the  consciences 
of  our  office-bearers  in  accepting  it  as  a  test  of  soundness, 
or  in  order  to  fit  it  to  be  our  testimony  to  the  truth  of 
God,  as  taught  in  His  Word,  and  our  text-book  of  doctrine  ? 
And  the  propositions  which  are  defended  are,  (1)  that  as 
we  accept  it,  as  office-bearers,  only  for  ^'  system  of  doctrine," 
and  it  confessedly  brings  the  system  we  profess  to  adequate 
expression,  it  does  not  need  revision  for  the  first  of  these 
reasons ;  and  (2)  that  as  its  statep^ents  of  the  truths  that 
enter  into  this  system  are  exact,  full,  complete,  moderate, 
cathohc,  inclusive,  and  devout,  it  does  not  need  revision  for 
the  second  reason.  If  I  properly  understand  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke,  he  does  not  take  issue  with  the  first  of  these  prop- 
ositions. He  criticises  my  mode  of  stating  it,  indeed,  as  if 
it  implied  that  advocates  of  revision  desired  change  in  the 
system  of  doctrine.  This,  "for  himself,  and  as  many  as 
will  adhere  to  him,"  he  repudiates.  The  object  of  those 
for  whom  he  speaks  "  is  not  to  change  the  system  of  doc- 
trine taught  in  the  Confession,  nor  to  repudiate  or  modify 
or  dilute  any  one  doctrine  of  that  system."  Surely,  then, 
we  may  say  that  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  agrees  that  no  change  in 
the  system  of  doctrine  which  the  Confession  teaches,  or  in 
"  any  one  doctrine  of  that  system,"  is  needed.  And  that  is 
my  first  contention.  His  whole  case,  then,  is  directed 
against  my  second  contention,  and  is  hung  in  the  present 
paper  on  three  selected  instances,  which  he  thinks  "fully 
demonstrate  the  necessity  and  practicability  of  revision." 


CONFESSIONAL    REYISION.  49 

These  three  points  concern  the  statement  of  the  doctrine 
of  reprobation  ;  the  clause  about  "  elect  infants  ";  and  the 
alleged  absence  from  the  Confession  of  sufficient  recogni- 
tion of  the  universal  provision  and  free  offer  of  salvation 
in  Christ.  I  cannot  deny  that  Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  chosen 
his  points  well.  The  issue  made  by  them  is  distinct ;  and 
it  is  probably  on  these  three  points  that  the  decision  of  the 
general  question  will  turn.  But  if  this  be  true,  I  cannot 
but  think  that  as  the  Church  (to  use  an  old  rabbinical 
phrase)  "  sinks  herself  down  in  the  book  "  during  the  com- 
ing months,  she  will,  on  this  issue,  feel  constrained  to  vote 
for  no  revision.  Certainly,  speaking  for  myself,  I  do  not 
desire  revision  at  these  points,  and  feel  bound  to  affirm 
that  the  Confession  stands  in  no  need  of  revision  in  any 
one  of  them — that  the  opinion  that  it  does,  rests  on  a  mis- 
apprehension of  its  teaching — and  that  the  alterations  that 
have  been  proposed  would  certainly  mar  it,  and  leave  it  a 
less  satisfactory  document  than  it  now  is.  I  owe  to  myself 
some  words  in  justification  of  my  venturing  to  differ  so 
materially  from  so  ripe  a  scholar  and  so  thoughtful  a  theo- 
logian as  Dr.  Van  Dyke. 


The  third  chapter  of  the  Confession,  "  Of  God's  Eter- 
nal Decrees,"  as  it  was  the  occasion  of  the  overture  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Nassau  opening  the  present  discussion, 
so  it  has  borne,  thus  far,  the  brunt  of  objection  to  the  Con- 
fession. To  me  it  appears,  however,  a  most  admirable 
chapter — the  most  admirably  clear,  orderly,  careful,  and 
moderate  statement  of  the  great  mysteries  of  God's  decrees 
to  be  found  in  the  whole  body  of  the  Keformed  Confe&- 
sions.  How,  then,  shall  we  account  for  the  offence  which 
has  been  taken  with  it  of  late  ?     I  trust  I  shall  be  excused 


50  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

for  saying  it  frankly :  it  seems  to  me  to  have  arisen  from 
a  very  strange  confusion,  involving  both  the  doctrine  of 
reprobation  on  the  one  side,  and  the  purport  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  on  the  other. 

In  order  to  explain  what  I  mean,  let  me  begin  by  re- 
minding the  readers  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  that  the 
lieformed  doctrine  has  always  distinguished  (under  various 
names)  between  what  we  may  call  pretention  and  condem- 
nation, and  has  always  taught  that  pretention  is  sovereign 
(as,  indeed,  it  must  be,  if  election  is  sovereign),  while  con- 
demnation, a  consequent  only  of  preterition,  is  "  for  their 
sins."  The  sentence  which  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  quotes  from  Dr. 
A.  A.  Hodge  is  perfectly,  accurately  expressed.  "  It  is  no 
part  of  the  Reformed  faith  that  God's  ....  treatment  of  the 
lost  is  to  be  referred  to  His  sovereign  wiU.  He  condemns 
men  only  ^  for  their  sins,  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious  jus- 
tice.' "  But  it  is  a  part  of  the  Reformed  faith  that  preterition 
is  sovereign,  as  Dr.  Whittaker,  in  the  age  before  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  clearly  tells  us  :  "  Of  predestination  and 
reprobation  it  is  our  part  to  speak  advisedly.  But  that  the 
only  will  of  God  is  the  cause  of  reprobation,  heing  taken  as 
it  is  contrary  to  predestination^  not  only  St.  Paul  and  St. 
Augustine,  but  the  best  and  learnedest  schoolmen,  have 
largely  and  invincibly  proved."  I  do  not  know  where  this 
necessary  distinction  between  the  sovereignty  of  preterition 
and  the  grounding  of  the  consequent  condemnation  on  sin, 
is  better  put,  in  late  writing,  than  in  the  late  Dr.  Boyce's 
(of  the  Louisville  Baptist  Seminary)  "Abstract  of  Sys- 
tematic Theology,"  which  I  mention  here  chiefly  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Boyce's  treatment  is  precisely 
that,  even  in  its  peculiarities,  of  the  great  Westminster 
divine,  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin.  I  prefer,  however,  to  quote 
here  another  Westminster  divine — Dr.  John  Arrowsmith — 
whose  statement  will  serve  to  illuminate  for  us,  not  only 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  51 

the  subject  itself,  but  the  treatment  of  it  in  the  West- 
minster Confession,  and  thus  supply  us  with  a  starting- 
point  for  its  study. 

In  his  "  Chain  of  Principles,"  Arrowsmith  explains : 
"  Preterition,  or  negative  reprobation,  is  an  eternal  decree 
of  God,  purposing  within  Himself  to  deny  unto  the  non- 
elect  that  peculiar  love  of  His  wherewith  election  is  ac- 
companied,  as,   also,  that   special   grace   which   infallibly 

bringeth  to  glory This  description  carries  with  it  a 

clear  reason  why  the  thing  described  goeth  under  the  name 
of  negative  reprobation,  because  it  standeth  mainly  on  the 
denial  of  those  free  favors  which  it  please th  God  to  bestow 
on  His  elect."  When  speaking  later  of  the  "  consequents 
of  the  forementioned  denials,"  he  comes  to  "  3.  Condem- 
nation for  sin,"  and  says  :  "  This  last  is  that  which,  by  di- 
vines, is  usually  styled  positive  reprobation^  and  is  clearly 
distinguishable  from  the  negative  in  that  the  one  is  an  act 
of  punitive  justice  respecting  sin  committed  and  con- 
tinued in.  But  the  other  is  an  absolute  decree  of  God's 
most  free  and  sovereign  will,  without  respect  to  any  dispo- 
sition in  the  creature.  I  call  them  consequents,  not  effects, 
because,  though  negative  reprobation  be  antecedent  to  them 
all,  it  is  not  the  proper  cause  of  them.  This  difference  be- 
tween the  decrees  Aquinas  long  since  took  notice  of. 
*  Election,'  saith  he,  *  is  a  proper  cause,  both  of  that  glory 
which  the  elect  look  for  hereafter,  and  of  that  grace  which 
they  here  enjoy.  Whereas  reprobation  is  not  the  cause  of 
the  present  sins  of  the  non-elect^  though  it  be  of  God's  for- 
saking them  ;  but  their  sin  proceeds  from  the  parties  them- 
selves so  passed  by  and  forsaken.' "  The  matter  is  capable 
of  very  copious  illustration  from  the  Westminster  divines, 
but  the  demands  of  space  forbid  entering  into  it  further 
here.  Enough  has  been  already  quoted  to  point  out  that 
the  Westminster  divines  had  in  mind,  as,   indeed,   they 


52  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

could  not  fail  to  have,  the  very  obvious  and  necessary  dis- 
tinction between  God's  sovereign  decree  of  pretention — 
"  negative  reprobation,"  as  Arrowsinith  calls  it — which  must 
be  as  free  and  sovereign  as  election  itself,  of  which  it  is,  in- 
deed, but  the  negative  statement,  and  His  dealing  with  those 
thus  passed  by,  which  depends  on  their  deserts.  The  fact 
that  men  are  sinners  does  not  affect  the  sovereignty  of  pret- 
ention :  it  only  affects  the  treatment  they  are  left  to  by 
pretention.  If,  for  instance,  out  of  the  holy  angels  God 
chose  sovereignly  a  certain  number  for  some  high  service, 
involving  special  gifts  of  grace  to  them  to  fit  them  for  it, 
the  "  leaving  "  of  the  rest  would  be  just  as  truly  "  preten- 
tion "  as  in  the  case  of  fallen  man ;  but  the  consequent 
treatment  being  but  the  "consequent,"  and  not  the  "ef- 
fect," of  pretention,  would  be  infinitely  different,  seeing 
that  it  is  the  effect  of  the  deserts,  whatever  they  may  be,  in 
which  they  are  found  to  be  left.  Consequently  sin  is  not 
the  cause  of  preterition ;  election  is  the  cause  of  pretention  ; 
i.  6.,  the  choosing  of  some  is  the  cause  that  "  the  rest "  are 
left.  Sin  is  the  cause,  however,  of  how  the  preterited  ones 
are  treated.  And  to  guard  this  the  Westminster  men  were 
accustomed  to  use  a  phrase  they  borrowed  from  Wol levins, 
which  affirmed  that  sin  is  not  the  causa  reprohationis^  but 
the  causa  reprobahilitatis ;  that  is,  sin  is  not  the  cause  of 
reprobation  (otlierwise  the  elect,  who  also  are  sinners,  would 
be  reprobates),  but  it  is  the  cause  of  men  being  in  a  repro- 
hatihle  state.  These  are  not  theological  subtleties ;  they 
are  broad,  outstanding  facts  of  God's  dealing  with  men ; 
and  it  is  failure  to  note  them  that  is  causing  much  (not  al- 
ways wholly  intelligent)  criticism  of  the  Confession  in  these 
last  days. 

So  let  us  come  back  to  Chapter  HI.  of  the  Confession 
now,  and  note  its  structure.  It  opens  with  what  is  the 
finest  and  most  guarded  and  most  beautiful  statement  of  the 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  53 

doctrine  of  God's  decrees  in  general,  that  has  ever  been 
compressed  into  so  small  a  space  (Sections  1  and  2).  Then, 
jH'oceeding  to  the  special  decree,  dealing  with  His  crea- 
tures' destiny,  it  first  asserts  the  fact  that  this  sovereign, 
particular  and  unchangeable  decree  extends  also  over  this 
sphere  of  the  destiny  of  the  creature  (Sections  3  and  4) ; 
and  then  proceeds  to  outline  God's  consequent  dealing  with 
the  diverse  classes  (Sections  5-7) ;  closing  with  a  caution 
against  careless  handling  of  such  great  mysteries  (Section 
8).  Were  this  the  proper  occasion  for  it,  it  w^ould  be  a  pleas- 
ure to  expound  this  marvellously  concise,  full,  and  careful 
statement  of  an  essential  doctrine,  in  detail.  Now,  how- 
ever, we  are  concerned  only  to  ask  what  would  be  the  effect 
of  adopting  the  amendment  to  it  proposed  by  Dr.  Van  Dyke, 
who  desires  that  the  words  "/br  their  sins "  should  be  in- 
serted into  Section  3.  "  Will  any  opponent  of  revision,"  he 
asks,  "  maintain  that  the  addition  of  these  words  would  mar 
the  integrity  of  our  Confession  ? "  I  answer  unhesitating- 
ly, yes :  the  insertion  of  these  words  into  Section  3  would 
be  an  intolerable  confusion  of  the  logical  order  and  exacti- 
tude of  statement  of  this  now  beautifully  ordered  and  care- 
fully phrased  chapter.  It  would  prematurely  introduce 
the  statement  of  the  grotmd  of  God's  actual  dealings  with 
oiie  class  into  the  statement  of  the  fact  that  tioo  classes 
are  discriminated;  it  would  confound  the  treatment  of />^'<?^- 
erition  (which  is  sovereign)  with  that  of  condemnation 
(which  is  based  on  sin) ;  it  would  throw  the  whole  chapter 
into  such  confusion  as  to  render  (as  Dr.  Monfort  in  the 
same  number  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  sees)  Section 
Y  superfluous,  while  affording  us  but  a  sorry  substitute  for 
that  richer  section ;  in  the  effort  to  prevent  careless  readers 
from  misapprehending  a  j^lain  and  admirably  ordered  docu- 
ment, it  would  compel  all  careful  readers  to  be  offended  by 
a  bad  arrangement  and  an  insufficient  theok)gical  discrimi- 


54  CONFESSIONAL  KEVISION. 

nation.  Speaking  for  myself,  then,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  tlie  j^resent  form  of  Chapter  III.  suits  me  precisely, 
and  that  the  proposed  change  would  be  unacceptable  and 
confusing,  and  appears  to  me  to  rest  only  on  an  unwilling- 
ness to  take  the  trouble  to  follow  the  Confession  in  the 
logical  ordering  of  its  matter. 


II. 

If  the  current  misapprehensions  of  Chapter  III.  are  re- 
markable, I  think  we  may  characterize  the  interpretation  of 
Chap.  X.,  Sec.  3,  which  finds  a  body  of  non-elect  infants 
dying  in  infancy,  implied  in  its  statement,  as  one  of  the 
most  astonishing  pieces  of  misinterpretation  in  literary  his- 
tory. It  is  so  perfectly  gratuitous  as  almost  to  reach  the 
level  of  the  sublime.  And  when  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  adduces 
"  the  ambiguous  phrase,  '  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,'  " 
as  sanctioning  "  the  popular  impression  that  we  hold  the 
abhorrent  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  infants,"  and  as, 
therefore,  one  of  the  three  cases  in  which  the  necessity  for 
revision  is  obvious,  he  renders  it  easy  for  us  to  reply  that 
the  Confession  is  certainly  in  no  need  of  revision  to  guard 
it  from  a  wholly  unreasonable  interpretation. 

The  assertion  that  the  clause  in  question  necessarily  im- 
plies, as  its  opposite,  a  bo^y  of  non-elect  infants  dying  in 
infancy,  has  been  so  often  and  so  dogmatically  reiterated  of 
late  years,  however,  that  I  shall  need  to  ask  the  readers  of 
the  Herald  and  Preshyter  to  go  with  me  to  the  text  of  the 
Confession  before  I  can  hope  that  they  will  credit  my  coun- 
ter assertion  that  such  an  implication  is  a  total  misunder- 
standing of  it.  Let  us  observe,  then,  that  we  are  now  deal- 
ing with  effectual  calling,  not  with  election.  All  questions 
of  election  have  been  settled  seven  chapters  back ;  and  this 
logically  arranged  Confession— the  careful  strictness  of  the 
logical  arrangement  of  which  has  been  made  a  reproach 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  55 

to  it — is  not  a  document  to  rebroacli  that  question  at  this 
late  and  inappropriate  point.  Let  us  observe,  next,  that  in 
the  apprehension  of  the  framers  of  the  Confession,  effectual 
calling  is  the  first  step  in  the  application  of  redemption  to 
God's  elect.  To  them,  and  them  only,  is  given  this  grace. 
But  how  ?  "  ^y  If  is  Word  and  Spirit " — and  then  a  rich 
statement  is  made  as  to  how  this  call  works  in  and  on  them, 
60  as  that,  though  effectually  drawn  to  Jesus,  they  come 
most  freely  and  wilhngly.  God's  elect,  then,  are  saved 
through  the  external  call  of  the  Word  and  the  internal  call 
of  the  Spirit  conjoined.  But  what  if  God's  elect  die  before 
they  are  capable  of  receiving  this  external  call  of  the  Word  ? 
Are  they  then  lost  ?  No,  says  Section  3  ;  God's  elect  that 
die  in  infancy  are  regenerated  and  saved  through  the  in- 
ternal work  of  the  Spirit,  without  the  intermediation  of 
the  Word,  and  so  are  all  others  of  the  elect  who  are  inca- 
pable of  receiving  such  an  outward  call.  Now,  observe : 
There  is  no  such  distinction  in  the  minds  of  the  framers 
of  the  Confession  at  this  point  as  "  elect  infants  dying  in 
infancy,"  and  "  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy."  The 
distinction  in  their  minds  is  that  between  "elect  infants 
that  reach  the  adult  state,"  who  are  saved  by  the  "  Word 
and  Spirit,"  and  "  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,"  who  are 
saved  by  the  Spirit  apart  from«the  Word.  This  is  the  an- 
tithesis that  was  in  their  minds  when  they  wrote  this 
phrase ;  and  they  expected  the  reader  to  understand,  as  he 
read  the  words,  "  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,"  that  these 
were  the  opposites  of  those  who,  having  reached  adulthood, 
were  saved  by  the  intermediation  of  the  Word.  In  short, 
"elect  infants  dying  in  infancy"  is  equivalent  to  "such 
elect  infants  as  die  in  infancy,"  and  not  at  all  to  "  such  in- 
fants dying  in  infancy  as  are  elect."  This  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  progress  of  the  thought.  And  this  being 
so,  the  phrase  does  not  start  the  question  as  to  whether 


66  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

there  are  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  at  all.  To 
raise  that  question  here  is  perfectly  gratuitous ;  and  as  it 
was  not  in  the  minds  of  the  writers  as  they  wrote  this 
phrase,  no  proof  that  the  majority  of  the  Westminster  di- 
vines believed  that  there  were  or  might  be  non-elect  infants 
dying  in  infancy,  has  any  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage.  We  deal  with  the  Confession  that  they 
framed,  and  with  what  they  teach  in  it — not  with  what  outside 
of  it  they  are  known  to  have  beheved.  And  what  they 
teach  here  is  that  all  of  God's  elect  that  reach  adult  age  are 
called  by  the  "  Word  and  Spirit,"  but  such  elect  infants  as 
die  in  infancy,  and  all  others  of  the  elect  who  are  incapable 
of  the  outward  call,  are  saved,  apart  from  the  outward  call, 
by  the  Spirit's  regeneration.  How  many  there  are — 
whether  all  or  some  of  such  beings — is  a  question  wholly 
out  of  mind.  The  antithesis  is  that  unless  these  infants  die 
in  infancy,  or  these  others  are  really  incapable  of  receiving 
the  outward  call,  they  cannot  be  saved  without  a  knowledge 
of  the  Gospel — and  that  the  fourth  section  goes  on  to  assert. 
To  raise  any  other  antithesis  here  is  to  raise  a  false  antith- 
esis, which  was  not  in  the  minds  of  the  writers  ;  and  to 
make  any  inferences  from  this  false  antithesis  is  to  read 
something  of  our  own  into  the  text.  If  we  choose  to  raise 
such  questions  of  our  own,  let  us  answer  them  ;  the  Confes- 
sion has  not  raised  them,  and  does  not  answer  them  by 
statement  or  implication. 

This  interpretation  of  the  bare  text  is  powerfully  sup- 
ported by  the  history  of  the  framing  of  this  phrase  in 
the  Assembly.  The  chapter  on  effectual  calling  in  the 
first  form  lacked  Section  3,  and  therefore  it  was  ordered 
("Minutes,"  p.  134)  "that  something  be  expressed  in  fit 
place  concerning  infants'  Tegeneration  in  their  infancy?'^ 
Observe,  this  is  the  point  in  the  minds  of  the  Assembly — 
the  regeneration  of  infants  in  their  i/nfancy.     What  they 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  67 

wished  to  do  was  to  show  that  Sections  1  and  2  did  not  ex- 
clude those  who  die  in  infancy  from  salvation,  by  the  asser- 
tion that  the  effectual  call  came  through  the  Word.  It  was 
the  possibility  and  actuality  of  regeneration  in  infancy  that 
they  wished  to  assert,  and  this,  and  this  only,  they  do  assert, — 
without  having  in  mind  anything  at  all  as  to  how  many 
of  infants  dvnng  in  infancy  are  so  regenerated,  or  implying 
anything  at  all  about  this  matter,  which  they  would  have 
adjudged  a  wholly  inappropriate  subject  to  broach  at  this 
place.  We  read  in  the  ''  Minutes "  of  debates  about  this 
section,  but  absolutely  nothing  of  the  debate  turning  on 
anything  else  than  the  memorandum  quoted  above  sug- 
gests. The  phrase  that  occurs  once,  ''  Proceed  in  debate 
about  elect  of  infants"  (p.  162),  furnishes  no  ground  what- 
ever for  an  opposite  inference.  In  the  absolute  uncertainty 
of  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase,  ''  elect  of  infants,"  it  only 
tells  us  that  Section  3  was  carefully  considered  before  it 
was  finally  accepted.  All  we  know  is,  that  it  cannot  mean 
anything  inconsistent  with  both  the  memorandum,  which 
opened  the  debate  and  the  formulated  section  which  closed 
it.  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  has  somewhere  in  his  papers  in  the 
Evangelist  said  (if  my  memory  serves  me),  that  he  is  aware 
that  this  Section  3  was  arrived  at  by  a  compromise.  If  he 
will  be  eo  good  as  to  point  out  the  evidence  for  this,  he  wonld 
confer  a  favor  on  scholars.  I  have  searched  the  "  Minutes  "  in 
vain  for  any  signs  of  such  a  compromise.  To  show  that  West- 
minster divines  differed  as  to  whether  all  or  only  some  of 
those  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  they  had  this  matter  in  mind 
when  this  section  was  being  debated.  We  know  that  they 
were  intending  to  assert  that  death  in  infancy  did  not  snatch 
the  soul  from  the  Saviour ;  we  know  this  is  what  they  did 
assert.  We  have  no  right  to  infer  any  compronn'se  in  the 
matter  or  any  debates  here  held  on  any  otlier  subject. 


58  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

What  has  been  said  surely  vindicates  the  Confession  from 
the  charge  that  revision  is  necessary  at  this  point  in  order 
to  prevent  its  teaching  that  there  are  non-elect  infants  dy- 
ing in  infancy.  Are  the  amendments  offered  in  themselves 
acceptable  ?  A  thousand  times  no,  I  should  say.  First,  to 
insert  a  statement  that  all  those  that  die  in  infancy  are  elect 
here,  would  be  out  of  place  and  order.  This  is  not  the 
place  to  treat  of  who  are  elect  and  who  are  not,  but  of  how 
God  saves  the  elect.  Secondly,  to  insert  such  a  statement 
anywhere  would  be  an  unnecessary  burdening  of  the  Con- 
fession with  an  explicit  statement  of  what  most  Presbyte- 
rians believe,  indeed,  but  not  all  feel  justified  in  asserting 
to  be  revealed  truth.  For  myself,  I  believe  with  all  my 
heart  that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  saved,  and  I  believe  that 
I  can  prove  it  from  Scripture.  But  1  think  it  far  better  to 
leave  the  Confession  asserting,  as  it  does  assert,  that  God 
saves  all  the  elect,  whether  reaching  adult  age  or  dying  in 
infancy,  rather  than  to  force  into  it  a  dogmatic  definition 
of  a  doctrine  which  many  among  us  still  beheve  rests  on  a 
pious  hope  rather  than  on  clear  Scripture.  To  do  this,  as 
Dr.  De  Witt  has  already  unanswerably  shown,  is  to  move 
in  the  direction  of  narrowing  our  confessional  basis,  with- 
out necessity  and  without  gain.  The  Confession  already 
provides  firm  ground  for  all  who  believe  that  all  those  that 
die  in  infancy  are  elect,  and  it  does  this  without  dogmatism 
and  without  sacrificing  its  moderation  and  cahn  guarded- 
iiess  of  statement.     Why  sacrifice  this  ?     Cui  hono  ? 


III. 


I  have  left  myself  but  little  space  to  speak  of  the  third 
test  case  adduced  to  prove  the  necessity  of  revision,  and  re- 
gard to  the  long-snffering  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  and 
to  the  patience  of  its  readers  leads  me  to  curtail  what  I  should 


CONFESSIONAL  KEVISION.  59 

like  to  say,  contenting  myself,  for  the  rest,  to  referring 
those  who  may  be  sufficiently  interested  to  a  recent  number 
of  tlie  Presbyterian  Banner^  in  which  I  have  treated  the 
general  matter  which  lies  at  the  base  of  the  present  question 
— the  Confession's  treatment  of  the  love  of  God  to  man. 
Here  the  following  few  remarks,  additional  to  what  I  have 
there  said,  nmst  suffice.  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  complains  that 
"  there  is  not,  in  all  our  Confession,  one  declaration  which 
clearly  comprehends  or  alludes  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scrij)- 
ture  "  on  the  sufficient  provision  and  free  proclamation  of 
salvation  for  all  men,  and  their  accountability  for  rejecting 
it.  I  do  not  understand  Dr.  Van  Dyke  to  complain  that 
all  this  is  nowhere  gathered  up  in  a  single  statement,  nor 
can  he  intend  to  complain  that  the  Confession  does  teach 
(as  it  certainly  does)  the  doctrine  of  "  the  limited  "  (or  bet- 
ter, ^'  the  definite  ")  atonement.  I  understand  him  to  mean 
that  the  Confession  taken  at  large  nowhere  recognizes  ade- 
quately the  freedom  of  the  great  Gospel  offer,  and  man's 
consequent  responsibility  for  rejecting  it.  But  certainly 
this  is  somewhat  rationally  charged.  It  can  hardly  be  said 
that  the  Confession  nowhere  teaches  that  "  the  eternal  decree 
of  God  hinders  no  one  from  accepting  the  Gospel,"  when 
everywhere  the  Confession  teaches  that  God  is  not  the  au- 
thor of  sin  (would  it  not  be  a  sin  to  refuse  the  Gospel  ?),  and 
that  by  the  decree  no  "  violence  is  offered  to  the  will  of  the 
creature "  (III.  1),  nor  is  his  liberty  taken  away  (III.  1), 
and  when  it  teaches  that  God  freely  proclaims  the  Gospel  to 
all,  as  we  shall  immediately  see.  For  to  affirm  that  the 
Confession  does  not  teach  that  the  offer  to  all  men  is  free,  and 
that  their  acceptance  of  it  would  be  saving,  is  to  forget  some 
of  its  most  emphatic  passages.  The  Confession  indicates 
the  duty  of  translating  the  Bible  "  into  the  vulgar  language 
of  every  nation,"  on  the  ground  that  thereby,  "  the  word  of 
(xod  dwelling  in  all  plentifully,  they  may  worship  him  in 


60  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

an  acceptable  manner,  and,  through  patience  and  comfort 
of  the  Scriptures,  may  have  hope"  (I.  8).  Here  is  clearly 
asserted  the  duty  of  the  free  proclamation,  and  the  value  of 
the  truth  as  proclaimed  to  all — that  all  may  through  it  be 
brought  to  "  hope."  Again  (VII.  6)  it  is  declared  that  the 
ordinances  of  the  New  Covenant  differ  from  those  of  the 
Old,  in  that  the  Gospel  is  held  forth  in  them  ''  in  more  full- 
ness, evidence  and  spiritual  efficacy  to  all  nations " — cer- 
tainly a  broad  enough  basis  for  any  preaching.  But  the 
Confession  goes  further  than  this,  declaring  with  the  great- 
est explicitness  (YII.  3)  that  the  Lord  has  '^freely  offered 
unto  sinners  life  .and  salvation  hy  Jesus  Christy  requiring 
of  them  faith  in  him  that  they  may  he  savedP  It  may  be 
asserted,  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  this 
Section  3  of  the  seventh  chapter  actually  contains  all  that 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke  asks,  i.  e.^  a  full  recognition  of  the  universal, 
sufficient  provision  and  the  free  offer  of  salvation  to  all, 
alongside  of  the  statement  of  its  special  designation  for  the 
elect,  and  I  do  not  see  what  need  there  is  for  a  repetition  of 
it  elsewhere.  Nay,  it  may  even  be  maintained  that  we  al- 
ready have  in  the  third  chapter  itself  all  the  recognition  of 
this  freedom  of  proclamation  which  is  appropriate  in  that 
place,  it  being  not  only  declared  in  the  opening  of  it  that 
God's  decree  does  not  supersede  man's  liberty  or  responsi- 
bility, but  also  commanded  at  the  end  that  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  be  not  so  preached  as  to  deter  man  from 
seeking  salvation,  but  only  so  as  to  encourage  the  seekers 
with  the  assurance  that  though  it  be  they  w^ho  are  working 
out  their  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  yet  it  is  God 
who  is  working  in  them  both  the  willing  and  the  doing  ac- 
cording to  His  own  good  pleasure.  The  Confession  requires 
that  predestination  be  so  preached  "  that  men  attending  the 
will  of  God  revealed  in  his  word  [there  is  the  free  offer], 
and  yielding  obedience  thereunto  [there  is  the  recognition 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  61 

of  personal  respousibilitj],  may,  from  the  certainty  of  their 
effectual  vocation  [there  is  the  recognition  of  God's  hand  in 
what  is  experienced  only  as  their  own  work],  be  assured  of 
their  eternal  election  [there  is  the  encouragement  to  further 
oifort]."  No  w^onder  the  splendid  sentence  follow^s  :  ^'  So 
sliall  this  doctrine  afford  matter  of  praise,  reverence,  and  ad- 
miration of  God,  and  of  humility,  diligence,  and  abundant 
consolation  to  all  that  sincerely  obey  the  Gospel."  The  or- 
der here  is,  (1)  hear  the  Gospel,  (2)  obey  it,  (3)  be  encour- 
aged and  comforted,  because  God's  hand  is  certainly  in  it ; 
and  that  is  (1)  free  proclamation  of  the  word  ;  (2)  responsi- 
bility in  accepting  it ;  (3)  praise  to  and  confidence  in  God 
for  His  blessed  work  in  us.  I  cannot,  then,  think  the  Con- 
fession in  need  of  the  third  improvement  which  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke  proposes.  It  has  it  already  spread  over  its  pages  and, 
especially  in  VI.  3,  explicitly  stated. 

In  closing,  then,  I  reiterate  that  I  cannot  but  feel  that 
the  Confession,  if  it  is  to  be  judged  by  these  three  well- 
chosen  examples,  must  be  adjudged  to  be  in  no  need  of  re- 
vision. And  I  cannot  help  noting  that  all  of  them  seem  to 
grow  out  of  misapprehension  of  wdiat  the  Confession  does 
teach  and  how  it  teaches  it.  Why  not  so  revise  it  as  to 
make  such  misapprehension  impossible,  then  ?  I  can  only 
reply  that  no  document  can  be  framed  which  is  incapable 
of  being  misapprehended  by  the  careless  reader,  and  I  am 
bound  to  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  the  Confession  cannot 
be  misapprehended  in  these  points  when  carefully  read. 
Most  of  the  presently  urged  objections  have  arisen  prima- 
rily in  the  minds  of  enemies  of  Calvinism,  whose  misappre- 
hension (or  misrepresentation)  was  a  foregone  conclusion,  and 
have,  by  dint  of  much  proclamation,  been  conveyed  from 
them  to  us — for  the  best  of  us  are  not  proof  against  outside 
influences.  We  have  tested  assertions  of  this  kind,  not  as 
we  should,  by  grounded  and  consecutive  study  of  the  whole 


02  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

dociiineiit,  but  by  momentary  adversion  to  the  passages 
specially  attacked,  with  our  minds  full  of  the  attack.  And 
so  we  have  seen  the  sense  in  them  which  we  were  sent  to 
look  for.  The  remedy  is  not  to  revise  the  Confession  in 
the  hope  of  rendering  misapprehension  of  it  imjDossible,  but 
to  revise  our  study  of  the  Confession,  in  the  hope  of  cor- 
rectly apprehending  it.  What  the  Confession  needs  is  not 
revision,  but  study.  And  the  present  agitation  will  have 
been  a  boon  to  the  Church,  however  it  eventuates,  if  it 
brings  the  Confession  even  more  into  the  minds  of  our 
membership ;  if  it  applies  its  forms  of  sound  words  to  oiu- 
conceptions  of  doctrine,  and  lays  its  devout  spirit  alongside 
of  our  aspirations  heavenward.  For  the  Confession  is  not 
only  the  soundest,  sweetest,  most  exact  and  moderate  state- 
ment of  doctrine  ever  framed.  It  is  a  revival  document. 
It  was  framed  by  revivalists,  in  a  revival  age.  And  it  bears 
a  revival  spirit  in  its  bosom.  He  who  feeds  on  it  will  find, 
not  only  his  thought  quickened  and  his  intellectual  appre- 
hension clarified,  but  his  heart  warmed  and  his  spirit  turned 
toward  God. 

Benjamin  B.  Warfield. 


X. 


DR.   VAN  DYKE'S  EEPLY  TO  PEOF.  WAE- 
FIELD. 


Dr.  Waefielb's  answer  to  my  article  in  the  Herald  and 
Presbyter  for  July  31st,  contains  nuicli  excellent  tlieologiz- 
ing,  and  is  marked  by  tlie  author's  eminent  ability.     It 
must  be  confessed,  however,  that  the  pleasure  which  comes 
to  me  with  everything  from  his  affluent  pen,  is  somewhat 
spoiled,  in  this  instance,  by  his  bearing  toward  those  he  op- 
poses, and  especially  by  the  way  in  which  he  accounts  for 
their  desire  to  have  the  Confession  revised.     In  the  follow- 
ing extracts  the  italics  are  mine.     "  Most  of  the  presently 
urged  objections  [to  the  Confession]  have  arisen  primarily 
in  the  minds  of  e7iemies  of  Calvinism^  whose  misappre- 
hension  or  misrepresentation  was  a  foregone  conclusion, 
and  have,  by  dint  of  much  proclamation,  been  conveyed 
from  them  to  its — for  the  best  of  us  are  not  proof  against 
outside  influences.     We  have  tested  assertions  of  this  kind, 
not  as  we  should,  by  grounded  and  consecutive  study  of  ihQ 
whole  document,  but  by  momentary  adversion  to  the  pas- 
sages especially  attacked,  with  our  minds  full  of  the  attach. 
And  so  we  have  seen  the  sense  in  them  which  we  were  sent 
to  loolcfor.     The  remedy  is  not  to  revise  the  Confession  in 
the  hope  of  rendering  misapprehension  of  it  impossible, 
but  to  revise  our  study  of  the  Confession  in  the  hope  of 
correctly  ajjprehending  itP     By  the  courteous  "we"  in 
this  passage  the  author  evidently  means  the  advocates  of  re- 
vision.    And  who  are  the  men  and  brethren  thus  repre- 

(63) 


64  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

sented  as  taking  their  cue  from  the  enemies  of  Calvinism, 
and  ignorantlj  railing  at  the  things  thej  understand  not  ? 
They  are  not  only  the  members  of  the  fifteen  presbyteries 
who  have  formally  asked  for  the  revision,  and  are  not  likely 
to  be  satisfied  with  being  sent  back  to  their  books.  To  tliese 
must  be  added  all  who  have  avowed  themselves  in  favor  of 
the  movement,  or  may  yet  take  part  in  its  advancement. 
Nor  can  we  confine  our  view  to  the  ministers  and  members 
of  our  own  Church.  The  Presbyterian  Church  of  Eng- 
land, after  having  lain  at  the  point  of  death  for  more  than 
a  century,  has  felt  constrained  in  the  day  of  her  revival, 
and  as  an  essential  condition  of  her  continued  hfe,  to  frame 
a  new  and  simpler  creed,  which,  in  all  that  constitutes  the 
real  excellence  of  the  old  Confession,  will  not  suffer  by  a 
candid  comparison  with  it.  The  United  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland,  with  great  unanimity,  has  put  forth 
an  orthodox  and  admirable  declarative  statement,  practi- 
cally amending  the  Confession  in  the  very  points  under 
discussion  among  us.  The  Free  Church  of  Scotland  is 
moving  in  the  same  direction.  I  feel  sure  that  when  he 
fully  considers  these  facts,  which  in  the  heat  of  debate  he 
seems  to  have  overlooked.  Dr.  Warfield  will  revise  his  con- 
clusions in  regard  to  the  causes  which  underlie  the  move- 
ment toward  Confessional  revision.  It  is  too  large  to  be 
ascribed  to  weakness  or  to  ignorance.  And  I  am  equally 
sure  that  when  we  extend  our  views  beyond  the  narrow 
and  fading  horizon  bounded  by  the  memories  of  the  civil 
war  in  this  country,  the  proposed  revision  will  harmonize 
with  the  desire  for  Presbyterian  unity,  if  not  with  some 
particular  effort  for  organic  union. 

In  the  quiet  woods  where  Dr.  Warfield's  articles  have 
overtaken  me,  having  no  books  bearing  upon  the  subject 
but  the  Bible  and  the  Confession,  I  have  taken  the  remedy 
he  prescribes,  and  read  the  Confession  with  the  aid  of  his 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  65 

expositions ;  but  if  the  desire  for  revision  be  an  evil  disease, 
I  liave  grown  nothing  better,  but  rather  worse.  It  may  be 
assumed,  perhaps  without  presumption,  that  in  sincerity  of 
purpose,  loyalty  to  tlie  Calvinistic  system  of  doctrine,  and 
ability  to  comprehend  our  Confession,  my  mind  is  up  to 
the  average  of  the  members,  ruling  elders,  and  pastors  of 
our  Church.  If,  after  a  lifetime  familiarity  with  its  teach- 
ings, I  so  grievously  misapprehend  the  meaning  of  the  Con- 
fession as  to  desire  amendments  which  would  narrow  its 
scope,  mar  its  beauty,  and  throw  its  whole  logical  order 
into  confusion,  is  itj  after  all,  so  "  admirably  clear "  upon 
tlie  points  under  consideration  as  it  is  represented  ? 

Before  coming  to  the  renewed  discussion  of  these  points, 
I  must  correct  two  or  three  mistakes  in  regard  to  my  views, 
into  which  Dr.  Warfield  has  unconsciously  fallen.  The 
first  is  small  in  itself,  but  puts  me  in  an  attitude  which  I 
am  not  willing  to  sustain.  Dr.  Warfield  quotes,  as  from 
me,  the  phrase  "  for  himself  and  as  many  as  will  adhere  to 
him?''  I  cannot  recall,  nor  find  by  diligent  search,  such  an 
expression  in  any  article  from  my  pen.  Perhaps  the  quo- 
tation-marks are  a  mistake  of  the  printer.  My  opponent 
is  further  mistaken  in  supposing  that  I  assent  to  the  propo- 
sition that  "  revision  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  ease  the 
consciences  of  our  office-bearers  in  accepting  the  Confes- 
sion." If  I  have  not  attacked  this  statement  at  length,  my 
dissent  from  it  has  been  often  intimated,  and  is  now  em- 
phatically repeated.  But  the  most  serious  mistake  is  the 
broad  assertion  that  the  Confession,  as  it  now  stands,  "  con- 
fessedly brings  the  system  we  profess  to  adequate  expres- 
sion." If  this  were  so,  what  show  of  reason  would  there 
be  for  advocating  a  revision?  And  what  sort  of  a  debate 
is  that  in  which  the  main  point  in  controversy  is  assumed, 
on  one  side,  as  granted  ?  The  advocates  of  revision,  while 
they  admit  and  insist  as  strenuously  as  their  opponents. 


66  CONFESSIOJSTAL  REVISION. 

that  the  Confession  contains  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  contend  timt  it  is  inadequate  ;  that 
is  to  say,  not  on  the  square  with  the  Scriptures  in  some  of 
its  doctrinal  statements.  Speaking  for  myself,  I  am  in 
favor  of  revision  (1)  because  as  an  exposition  of  Scripture 
the  Confession  is  excessive  on  some  points  and  deficient  on 
others ;  (2)  because  by  its  overstatements  and  omissions  it 
puts  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  a  false  light  before  the 
Christian  world  outside  of  our  own  bounds,  and  gives  oc- 
casion for  misunderstandings  which  could  easily  be  re- 
moved ;  (3)  because  it  separates  our  theologians  from  our 
people  by  obscure  passages  which  a  change  in  phraseology 
would  make  plain  without  impairing  the  integrity  of  any 
essential  doctrine ;  (4)  because  it  puts  an  unnecessary  strain 
upon  the  consciences  of  some  of  our  office-bearers  who  are 
just  as  sound  in  the  faith,  though  not  as  learned,  as  the 
opponents  of  revision  ;  and  especially  upon  the  consciences 
of  those  who,  by  their  training  and  office,  are  "  repi'esent- 
atives  of  the  people  ";  (5)  because  as  a  dead  law  upon  the 
statute-book  weakens  the  force  of  all  law,  the  rejected 
statements  of  the  Confession  impair  its  authority  as  a 
standard  of  orthodoxy  and  its  strength  as  a  bond  of  union  ; 
(6)  because  in  persuading  our  brightest  young  men  to  enter 
the  ministry,  and  our  best  laymen  to  accept  the  eldership, 
notwithstanding  their  scruples  about  adopting  the  Confes- 
sion, the  freeness  of  the  terms  of  subscription  is  insisted 
upon  until  our  liberty  is  in  danger  of  degenerating  into 
license ;  and  finally,  (7)  because  some  of  the  leading  oppo- 
nents of  revision  advocate,  as  its  alternative,  such  a  loosen- 
ing of  the  terms  of  subscription  as  w^ill  make  the  old 
Confession  nothing  more  than  a  historic  monument. 

The  advocates  of  revision  have  not  undertaken  to  do  it. 
They  have  suggested  amendments  simply  to  show  that  the 
Confession  can  be  improved,  not  in  its  system  of  doctrine, 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  67 

but  in  its  doctrinal  statements.  They  have  not  insisted 
upon  the  precise  form  of  these  amendments.  Certainly  I 
have  not  attempted  to  revise  the  Confession,  nor  to  show 
in  detail  how  it  should  be  done.  With  this  understanding, 
speaking  only  for  myself,  I  am  willing  to  stake  the  issue 
upon  the  three  positions  Dr.  Warfield  attacks.  This  intro- 
duction is  so  long  that  it  will  be  better  to  reserve  my 
defense  of  these  three  positions  for  another  article. 


II. 
The  careful  reader  of  Dr.  Warfield's  articles  will  observe 
that  he  begins  his  attack  upon  the  proposed  amendments  of 
the  Confession  by  adopting  an  amendment  of  his  own. 
The  third  chapter,  to  which  so  much  of  this  discussion  re- 
lates, is  entitled  "  Of  God's  Eternal  Decreed  This  title  is 
the  key  to  the  interpretation  hanging  at  the  door.  But 
Dr.  Warfield  quotes  it  thus :  "  Of  God's  Eternal  Decrees^ 
This,  of  course,  was  not  done  with  the  intention  of  amend- 
ing it.  l^either  is  it  a  slip  of  the  pen  or  a  t}^ographical 
error,  for  the  same  mistake  crops  out  repeatedly  in  his 
whole  article,  and  may  fairly  be  called  an  unconscious  ad- 
justment of  the  subject  to  the  exigencies  of  the  argument. 
The  argument  on  his  side  hinges  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  decree  of  God,  as  defined  in  this  chapter,  is  not  singu^ 
lar,  but  plural.  He  insists  upon  the  distinction  between 
negative  reprobation  and  positive  reprobation ;  that  is,  be- 
tween pretention  or  the  purpose  of  God  to  pass  by  the 
non-elect,  and  His  purpose  to  punish  them  for  their  sins ; 
the  first  being  "  an  absolute  decree  of  God's  most  free  and 
sovereign  will,  without  respect  to  any  disposition  in  the 
creature."  He  quotes  and  approves  the  foregoing  sentence 
from  Dr.  Arrowsmith,  and  refers  to  the  writings  of  other 
Westminster  divines  to  show  that  the  Assembly  "  had  in 
mind  "  this  distinction  between  negative  and  positive  rep- 


68  CONFESSIONAL  EEVISION. 

robation.  But  the  truth  is,  the  mind  of  the  Assembly 
was  very  much  divided  in  regard  to  this  third  chapter,  and 
the  best  evidence  of  what  was  in  their  minds  is  the  fact, 
strangely  overlooked  by  Dr.  AYarfield,  that,  after  a  long 
and  tough  debate,  the  title  of  it  was  settled  in  the  singular 
number.  This  decision  is  rigidly  adhered  to.  It  underlies 
the  whole  chapter,  and  must  underlie  its  interpretation. 
''  The  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will "  in  Sec- 
tion 1  is  changed  in  Section  3  to  "  the  decree  of  God,"  and. 
in  Section  5,  to  "his  eternal  and  immutable  purpose";  but 
in  this  interchange  of  synonymous  terms  the  singular  form 
is  carefully  preserved.  The  decree  of  God  by  which  Sec- 
tion 3  says  "some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  to 
everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to  everlasting 
death,"  is  one  and  the  same  with  "  the  most  wise  and  holy 
counsel  of  his  own  will,"  whereby  He  has  "  unchangeably 
ordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  This  one  counsel, 
decree,  or  purpose  must  therefore  include  not  only  the  pret- 
ention of  the  non-elect,  but  their  condemnation  and  pun- 
ishment ;  for  the  predestination,  both  of  the  elect  to  life 
and  of  the  non-elect  to  death,  is  the  one  expression  of  the 
one  purpose  or  counsel  of  God's  will  whereby  He  has  fore- 
ordained "  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  This  is  the  theory 
of  the  third  chapter.  It  recognizes  no  distinction  between 
negative  and  positive  reprobation.  The  counsel,  pur- 
pose, or  decree  by  which  the  elect  are  chosen,  and  the  non- 
elect  passed  by,  includes  at  the  same  time  and  upon  the 
same  ground  the  destiny  of  both  classes,  and  "all  the 
means  thereunto."  By  changing  the  title  of  the  chapter  to 
"  God's  eternal  decrees,"  and  interpreting  it  upon  that  theory, 
Dr.  TVarfield  has  made  liimself  liable  to  the  same  advice 
he  gives  to  others — to  go  back  and  study  his  Confession. 

There  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  treatment  of  this 
subject  between  the  Confession  and  the  Catechisms.     In 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  69 

the  latter  tlie  one  decree  or  purpose  is  spoken  of  as  the  de- 
crees of  God,  and  as  "  the  wise,  free,  and  holy  acts  of  the 
counsel  of  his  will."  And  these  acts  of  the  divine  will  are 
further  represented  as  embodied  in  two  covenants  :  the  one, 
the  covenant  of  life,  established  '*  when  God  had  created 
man,"  and  the  other  the  covenant  of  grace,  entered  into  in 
full  view  of  the  fact  that  "  all  mankind  by  the  fall  had 
lost  communion  with  God,  and  were  under  his  wrath  and 
curse"  (Shorter  Catechism,  Questions  12,  19,  20;  Larger 
Catechism,  Questions  12,  30,  32).  We  will  not  discuss  now 
the  significance  of  these  differences,  except  to  observe  that 
they  clearly  indicate  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  West- 
minster Assembly  which  these  varied  statements  were  in- 
tended to  compromise.  There  were  then,  as  now,  two  op- 
posing theories  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  God's  eternal 
decree  to  the  salvation  or  perdition  of  men,  which,  for  the 
sake  of  unlearned  readers,  it  may  be  well  to  explain  in  sim- 
ple language. 

The  first  maintains  that  God  predestinates  or  foreordains 
men  to  life  or  to  death,  not  as  created  and  fallen,  but  sim- 
ply as  creatable  and  fallible,  and  without  regard  to  their 
condition  or  deserts  as  sinners ;  or,  in  the  language  of  Dr. 
Arrowsmith,  which  Dr.  Warfield  quotes  with  approbation, 
by  "  an  absolute  decree  of  liis  free  and  sovereign  will,  with- 
out respect  to  any  disposition  in  the  creatures."  This  theo- 
ry is  called  "  supralapsarian,"  which  signifies  hefore^  or 
(il)ove^  the  fall.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  theory  was 
lield  by  many  in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  especially 
among  the  Independents,  who  constituted  the  majority, 
and  that  it  reached  its  legitimate  conclusion  and  climax 
among  their  descendants  in  Xew  England,  in  the  old 
maxim,  of  which  we  heard  so  much  in  our  youth,  that  "a 
man  must  be  wiUing  to  be  damned  for  the  glory  of  Go(] 
before  he  can  be  saved." 


70  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

The  second  theory  maintains  that  men  are  predestinated 
to  hf e  or  to  death  as  fallen  creatures ;  that  the  elect  are 
chosen  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father 
in  Jesus  Christ,  through  sanctilication  of  the  Spirit  (Eph.  i. 
4  ;  1  Peter  i.  2),  and  that  the  non-elect  are  left  to  the  fore- 
seen consequences  of  their  own  sin,  which  sin  "  God  was 
pleased,  according  to  his  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to  permit, 
having  purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own  glory  "  (Confession, 
Chap.  YI.,  Sec.  1),  and  which  consequences  "  had  no  less 
been  certain,  unforeseen."  This  theory  is  called  "  sublap- 
sarian,"  which  signifies  afte7\  or  under ^  the  fall.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  theory  is  distinctly  recognized 
and  taught  in  the  familiar  language  of  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, w^hich  declares  that  God  "did  not  leave  all  mankind 
to  perish  in  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery"  into  which  the 
fall  had  brought  them ;  but  "  having  of  his  mere  good 
pleasure  from  all  eternity  elected  some  to  everlasting  life, 
did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of 
the  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  and  to  bring  them  into  an 
estate  of  salvation  by  a  Redeemer."  There  can  be  just  as 
little  doubt  that  this  theory  has  always  prevailed  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  this  country.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge, 
in  his  "  Outlines  of  Theology,"  admits  that  the  "  supralap- 
sarian  "  is  the  most  logical  theory  according  to  the  ordinary 
rules  of  human  judgment.  But  he  proceeds  to  show  that 
these  rules  cannot  be  applied  to  the  mysteries  of  revelation  ; 
that  the  supralapsarian  theory  is  unscriptural ;  that  the  elect 
are  chosen  and  the  non-elect  passed  by,  out  of  the  number 
of  fallen  and  actually  sinful  men ;  that  predestination  in- 
cludes reprobation  in  both  its  negative  and  positive  aspects, 
and  that  to  represent  God  as  reprobating  the  non-elect  by  a 
sovereign  act,  without  respect  to  the  fact  that  they  are  sin- 
ners, is  to  impeach  the  righteousness  of  God.  I  do  not 
pretend  to  quote  him  witli  verbal  accuracy,  but  feel  sure 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  71 

that  I  do  not  misrepresent  his  meaning.  From  his  "  Consen- 
sus of  the  Reformed  Creeds,"  I  quoted  in  the  Herald  and 
Presbyter  of  July  31st,  the  following  sentence:  "It  is  no 
]xirt  of  the  reformed  faith  that  God  created  men  in  order 
to  damn  thein,  nor  that  His  treatment  of  the  lost  is  to  be 
referred  to  His  sovereign  will.  He  condemns  men  only  as 
a  judge  for  their  sins  to  the  pi'aise  of  His  glorious  justice  " 
{Presbyterian  Beview,  vol.  v.,  p.  296).  In  repeating 
this  passage  Dr.  Warfield  omits  the  italicised  clause.  Per- 
haps the  disjunctive  '^  nor "  warrants  his  doing  so.  But 
the  omitted  phrase,  "  that  God  created  men  in  order  to 
damn  them,"  is  the  popular  and  just  description  of  the 
"  supralapsarian "  theory,  which  it  was  evidently  Dr. 
Hodge's  intention  to  repudiate  and  condemn  as  no  part  of 
the  reformed  faith.  The  use  Dr.  Warlield  makes  of  the 
remainder  of  the  passage  is  a  refined  subtlety  I  cannot  ac- 
cept. He  tells  us  that  "  preteritiou,"  or  the  passing  by  of 
the  non-elect,  is  no  part  of  their  treatment.  Now,  I  will 
not  dispute  with  my  learned  opponent  about  the  meaning 
of  a  word,  but,  illustrating  divine  things  by  human — which 
is  the  only  way  we  can  apprehend  them — if  I  see  two  men 
drowning,  and  having  the  ability  to  save  both,  resolve  to 
save  one  and  not  the  other,  by  that  resolution  I  have 
treated  the  other  in  a  way  that  cannot  be  justified  by  my 
simple  resolution.  And  tliough  we  are  not  able,  and  are 
not  required,  to  "  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men  "  in  this 
particular,  wc  have  no  warrant  in  Scripture  or  in  reason  to 
refer  it  simply  to  the  sovereignty  of  His  will. 

It  may  be  true,  at;  Dr.  Warlield  affirms,  that  "  the  fact 
that  men  are  sinners  does  not  affect  the  sovereignty  of  pret- 
eritiou ";  but^  then,  sovereignty  is  not  the  only  attribute 
of  the  divine  will— which  is  bu*^  another  name  for  God^s 
whole  nature  in  action.  He  is  holy,  just,  and  merciful,  as 
well  as  sovereign,  and  these  attributes  belong  to  every  act 


72  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

of  II is  will,  and  every  purpose  wLicli  determines  those 
acts ;  in  short,  they  pervade  and  control  every  part  and 
phase  of  that  one  comprehensive  decree  which  includes 
''  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  To  say  that  preterition  is 
"an  absolute  decree  of  God's  most  free  and  sovereign  will, 
without  respect  to  any  disposition  in  the  creature,''  is  to 
say,  in  other  words,  that  God  creates  men  in  order  to  damn 
them.  It  is  true,  and  I  devoutly  believe,  that  the  elect 
"  are  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  God's  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith,  or  any  other  thing  in 
the  creature,  as  conditions,  or  causes,  moving  him  there- 
unto "  (Chap.  III.,  Sec.  5).  But  even  if  we  admit  the 
inference  that  the  foreseen  sins  of  the  non-elect  are  not  the 
moving  cause  of  their  being  passed  by,  it  by  no  means  fol- 
low^s  that  preterition  is  "w^ithout  respect  to  any  disposition 
in  the  creature."  There  are  necessary  conditions  which 
are  not  moving  causes.  Aside  from  its  theological  bearing, 
the  "  supralapsarian "  theory  is  founded  on  an  abuse  of 
human  language,  and  imposes  impossible  conditions  on 
human  thought.  To  say  that  God  decrees  to  save  some, 
and  not  to  save  others,  -without  respect  to  the  fact  that  they 
are  all  sinners,  lost  and  ruined  in  the  fall,  is  about  as 
reasonable  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  the  humane  society 
had  resolved  to  save  some,  and  not  to  save  others,  from 
drowning,  without  respect  to  the  fact  of  their  being  in  the 
w^ater.  The  Scripture  says  that  "  we  are  chosen  in  Christ 
Jesus  that  ^ve  might  become  holy  and  without  blame." 
We  must,  therefore,  have  been  considered  as  unholy  and 
hlamecMe  when  we  w^ere  chosen. 

Now,  let  us  apply  these  principles  to  the  revision  of  the 
third  chapter  of  the  Confession.  The  first  and  second  sec- 
tions are  complete  in  themselves — "express  and  admira- 
ble." Though  I  do  not  see  in  them  all  the  sweetness  and 
revival  influences  which  Dr.  Warfield  sees,  my  intellect 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  73 

submits  to,  and  my  heart  approves,  the  majesty  of  their 
truth,  especially  when  I  read  them  in  the  light  of  the 
Catechism,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  distinction  between 
God's  permissive  and  active  decrees  (Larger  Catechism,  Q. 
19).  But  the  third  section,  regarded  as  an  independent 
jiroposition,  I  utterly  reject.  It  is  "  supralapsarian."  It  is 
out  of  harmony  with  the  general  teaching  of  onr  Stand- 
ai'ds.  It  is  not  believable  to  most  of  our  ministers  and 
people,  except  as  we  read  into  it  what  I  propose  to  insert 
as  a  permanent  amendment,  so  that  its  concluding  clause 
will  read  :  "  And  others  foreordained,  for  their  sins,  to 
everlasting  death."  It  is  true  that  this  little  phrase,  so  big 
with  meaning,  occurs  in  the  seventh  section,  and  if  that 
section  is  retained  the  phrase  would  be  repeated.  I  fail  to 
see,  however,  that  this  repetition  would  mar  the  beauty  of 
the  chapter,  or  create  such  a  horrible  confusion  in  its  log- 
ical order,  as  Dr.  Warfield  apprehends.  Clearness  of  mean- 
ing is  the  first  quality  of  a  logical  order  and  of  a  good 
style.  It  is  ahvays  better  to  repeat  than  to  run  the  risk  of 
being  misunderstood.  But  I  propose  to  make  this  amend- 
ment of  the  third  section  in  connection  with  the  proposal 
to  omit  the  fourth  and  seventh  sections  entirely.  These 
sections  contain  inferences  from  the  doctrine  of  the  chapter 
which,  however  logical,  are  not  essential  parts  of  the  doc- 
trine itself,  and  put  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  many 
wlio  thoroughly  believe  that  doctrine.  There  are  a  multi- 
tude of  such  inferences,  which,  if  they  were  all  put  into 
■'ir  Confession,  would  make  every  chapter  as  long  as  a  book 
of  Calvin's  "  Institutes,"  and  narrow  the  document  in  an 
inverse  ratio  to  its  enlargement.  I  further  propose  to  sup- 
ply the  places  of  the  omitted  sections  by  some  such  state- 
ment as  the  following  :  ''  God's  eternal  decree  hindereth  no 
man  from  accepting  Christ,  as  He  is  freely  offered  to  us  in 
the  Gospel ;  nor  ought  it  to  be  so  construed  as  to  contradict 


74  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

the  declarations  of  Scripture,  tbat  Christ  is  the  propitiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  God  is  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repent- 
ance." Now,  let  any  man  read  this  third  chapter  of  the 
Confession,  as  thus  amended,  and  if  it  appears  to  him  that 
its  beauty  is  marred,  its  sweetness  lessened,  its  order  con- 
fused, or  the  integrity  of  its  doctrine  impaired  by  the 
change,  I  can  only  say  that  both  my  taste  and  my  ortho 
doxy  differ  from  his.  And  so  let  us  agree  to  differ  in  the 
embrace  of  God's  love,  and  in  the  exercise  of  the  charity 
it  inspires.  I  shall  be  compelled  to  try  the  patience  of  the 
readers  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  by  another  article. 


III. 

In  regard  to  the  phrase,  "  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  " 
(Chapter  X.,  Section  3),  I  have  taken  two  positions :  that  it 
was  adopted  as  a  compromise^  and  that  it  is  amliguous. 
Tlie  first  is  quite  unimportant,  and  would  be  surrendered, 
but  for  Dr.  Warfield's  saying  that  the  proof  of  it  would 
"  confer  a  great  favor  upon  scholars."  With  this  challenge 
he  lays  down  a  new  and  strange  law  as  to  the  competency 
of  testimony  in  the  case.  He  tells  us  that  "  it  is  nothing 
to  the  purpose  to  show  that  the  Westminster  divines  dif- 
fered as  to  whether  all,  or  only  some,  who  die  in  infancy 
are  saved,"  because  "  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  Jiad 
this  matter  in  mind  when  this  section  was  debated."  Does 
he  forget  that  a  little  while  before,  when  discussing  the 
third  chapter  of  the  Confession,  he  undertook  to  demon- 
strate what  "  the  Westminster  divines  had  in  mind,"  by 
quoting  not  only  from  their  works,  but  from  the  works  of 
men  who  lived  in  the  preceding  age?  But  let  that  pass; 
we  are  not  discussing  the  principles  of  logic,  nor  the  ques- 
tion of  personal  consistency. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  75 

He  says  again  :  "  There  is  an  absolute  uncertainty  as  to 
what  is  meant  by  the  phrase  'elect  of  infants.'  All  we 
know  is,  that  it  cannot  mean  anything  inconsistent  with 
both  the  memorandum  that  opened  the  debate  and  the 
formulated  section  which  closed  it."  I  answer  this  astound- 
ing deliverance,  and  at  the  same  time  present  the  proof 
that  the  fornmlated  conclusion  was  a  compromise,  by  the 
following  quotation  from  Dr.  Mitchell :  "  This  statement 
(elect  infants  dying  in  infancy),  it  has  been  averred,  neces- 
sarily implies  that  there  are  non-elect  infants  dying  in 
infancy  who  are  not  regenerated  and  saved.  It  does  not 
seem  to  me,  when  fairly  interpreted,  to  imply  any  such 
thing.  It  might  have  heen  sii^sceptiUe  of  such  an  inter- 
pretation had  it  heen  allowed  to  stand  in  the  form  which 
it  appeal's  to  have  home  in  the  draft  first  hrought  into  the 
Assemhly — elect  of  infants, not  elect  infants"  ("The  West- 
minster Assembly,"  p.  397).  The  meaning  of  the  phrase 
"  elect  of  infants "  is  not  uncertain,  nor  is  the  formulated 
conclusion  of  the  debate  identical  with  it.  That  conclusion 
was  evidently  a  compromise.  The  word  is  not  used  in 
any  offensive  sense,  but  simply  to  express  the  idea  that  the 
phrase  "elect  infants"  was  substituted  for  "elect  of  in- 
fants," after  long  debate,  to  bring  together  and  cover  the 
conflicting  opinions  that  cdl  dying  infants  are  saved,  and 
that  only  some  of  them  are  saved.  It  is,  therefore,  amhig- 
iious ;  it  may  be  interpreted  either  way,  and  was  so  in- 
tended to  be.  Dr.  Warfield  admits  this,  and,  indeed,  it  is 
the  very  ground  upon  which  he  defends  the  statement  of 
the  Confession  as  it  now  stands,  and  says  "a  thousand  times 
no"  to  all  proposed  amendments.  For  himself,  he  "be- 
lieves with  all  his  heart  that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  saved, 
and  that  he  can  prove  it  from  Scripture'''' \  but  he  would 
not  have  his  own  faith,  and  what  Dr.  Hodge  declares  to  be 
the  common  faith  of  the  Protestant  world,  put  into  tlu^ 


76  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

Confession,  lest  it  should  offend  some  who  may  not  have 
''  like  precious  faith."  It  is  devoutly  to  be  wished  that  he 
would  consent,  in  the  exercise  of  the  same  comprehensive 
charity,  to  amend  out  of  the  Confession  some  things  which 
the  great  majority  of  the  Protestant  world  and  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  do  not  believe. 

Dr.  Wariield's  labored  argument  to  show  that  the  Con- 
fession, as  it  now  stands,  "does  not  necessarily  imply  a 
body  of  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,"  has  no  perti- 
nence to  anything  that  has  been  said  by  the  advocates  of 
revision.  Certainly  no  such  statement  has  fallen  from  my 
pen.  But  I  do  say  that  the  ambiguous  phrase  "elect 
infants"  sanctmis — that  is  to  say,  it  gives  color,  plausi- 
bility, and  force  to — the  popular  impression  that  Presby- 
terians believe  the  abhorrent  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of 
infants.  This  is  a  simple  and  patent  fact.  If  it  were  true 
that  all  who  stumble  at  the  phrase  "elect  infants"  are 
ignorant  or  insincere,  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
remove  the  stumbling-block,  when  it  can  be  done  so  easily 
and  without  in  anywise  impairing  our  doctrine.  While 
the  change  of  elect  into  all  would  be  most  acceptable 
to  me,  I  do  not  insist  upon  this  form  of  the  amendment, 
and  am  entirely  willing  to  accept  the  suggestion  of  Dr. 
Monfort  and  others,  and  let  the  section  read,  ''All  elect 
persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called,"  etc. 
But  Dr.  Warfield  asks,  Ctd  bono  f — what's  the  use  of  any 
amendment  ?  Answer :  (1)  It  mil  put  away  a  bone  of  con- 
tention and  a  rock  of  offence.  (2)  It  will  silence  gainsay- 
ing and  remove  reproach.  (3)  It  will  bring  comfort  to 
tender  consciences  and  sorrowful  hearts.  (4)  It  will  re- 
lieve our  theologians  from  the  onerous  task  of  repeating  to 
successive  generations  the  same  old  explanations,  which,  to 
the  popular  mind,  do  not  explain,  but  leave  the  problem 
as  dark  as  it  was  before.     "Elect  infants"  is  not  a  Bible 


CONFESSIOIfl^AL  REVISION.  77 

phrase.     It  belongs  to  the  cloister.     Let  it  be  handed  over 
to  the  ecclesiastical  museum. 

We  come  now  to  the  third,  and,  in  my  judgment,  the 
most  important  amendment  suggested  to  show  the  necessity 
for  revision.  It  refers  to  a  radical  defect  in  the  Confession, 
considered  as  a  whole,  and  in  regard  to  its  suitableness  to  be 
the  banner  and  symbol  of  the  Church  in  this  pre-eminently 
missionary  age,  as  distinguished  from  the  age  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  Of  course,  we  all  believe — if  we  use 
words  accurately — in  a  definite  atonement.  The  atonement 
is  limited,  in  fact,  to  those  who  receive  it,  X$ut  Christ  did 
more  than  make  an  atonement.  He  offered  a  sacrifice  and 
satisfaction  to  divine  justice  which  is  infinite  in  its  own  na- 
ture, and  as  an  expression  of  God's  love  for  the  whole  world. 
From  that  love  no  indi\adual  of  the  human  race,  elect  or 
non-elect,  is  excluded.  I  do  not  believe  that  God  hated 
Esau  (Rom.  ix.  13),  or  that  that  Christ  who  is  the  express 
image  of  the  Father,  hated  the  reprobate  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  over  whom  He  wept,  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
in  which  we  are  required  to  "hate  father  and  mother"  in 
order  to  be  His  disciples.  I^ow,  I  aflSrm,  and  challenge  proof 
to  the  contrary,  that  our  Confession  of  Faith — excellent  and 
admirable  as  it  is  in  other  respects — does  not  contain  one 
declaration  of  the  infinite  love  of  God  for  all  men  as  it  is  re- 
vealed in  the  Gospel,  or  one  declaration  of  the  infinite  full- 
ness of  the  Gospel  salvation  as  sufficient,  suitable,  and  offered 
to  all  sinners,  or  one  declaration  which  clearly  comprehends, 
or  even  alludes  to,  the  teaching  of  Scripture  on  these  points. 
And  if  it  contains  no  one  declaration  which  covers  all,  or  any, 
of  these  points,  then  it  does  not  cover  them  as  a  whole,  for  the 
whole  is  no  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts.  Dr.  Warfield's  an- 
swer to  this  charge  is  a  remarkable  example  of  ability  to  draw 
conclusions  which  are  not  in  the  premises.  Let  me  beg  the 
patience  of  our  readers  for  a  review  of  liis  arguments  in  detail. 


78  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

1.  In  tlie  proposed  amendment  on  the  subject  we  are  now 
considering,  it  is  affirmed  that  "  God's  eternal  decree  hinders 
no  one  from  accepting  Christ  as  He  is  freely  offered  to  all 
sinners  in  the  Gospel."  Dr.  Warfield  meets  this  by  quot- 
ing from  Chap.  III.,  Sec.  1,  the  declaration  that  "  God  is 
not  the  author  of  sin,"  and  asks,  triumphantly  :  "  Would  it 
not  be  a  sin  to  refuse  the  Gospel  ? "  I  reply,  that  if  a  man 
is  hindered  by  a  divine  decree  from  accepting  the  Gospel, 
he  cannot  refuse  it,  and  there  would  be  no  sin  in  his  not 
doing  what  Ahnighty  God  prevented  him  from  doing.  To 
be  hindered  'from  accepting,  and  to  reftise  to  accept,  are 
not  synonymous,  or  even  reconcilable,  terms.  This  vicious 
circle  does  not  touch  the  question.  The  statement  that 
"  no  violence  is  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature  "  comes 
nearer  the  point.  It  implies  that  God's  decree  does  not 
hinder  any  man's  acceptance  of  the  Gospel.  This  has 
never  been  denied  by  me ;  but  what  I  contend  for  is,  that 
a  truth  so  vital  ought  to  be  in  the  Confession,  not  merely 
as  an  inference  which  a  logician  can  draw  out  of  it,  but  as 
a  clear  and  explicit  statement  which  he  who  runs  may  read. 

2.  Dr.  Warfield  affirms  that  the  Confession  teaches  that 
"  God  freely  proclaims  the  Gospel  to  all,  as  we  shall  pres- 
ently see."  And  then  he  proceeds  to  cite  passages  in  which 
the  word  "  all,"  or  any  equivalent  of  it,  does  not  occur,  ex- 
cept in  one,  and  there  its  antecedent  and  equivalent  is  "  na- 
tions," and  not  every  sinner  of  the  human  race.  He  quotes 
from  Chapter  I.,  Section  8,  the  declaration  that  the  Scrip- 
tures "  are  to  be  translated  into  the  language  of  evei'y  na- 
tion into  which  they  come  ;  that  the  word  of  God,  dwelling 
plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an  acceptable 
manner,  and,  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, may  have  hope."  But  does  this  prove  that  the  Con- 
fession contains  "  one  declaration  which  clearly  comprehends 
or  alludes  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture  on  the  sufficient  pro- 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  79 

vision  and  free  proclamation  of  salvation  for  all  men  "  ?  As 
well  might  we  insist  that  the  Articles  of  the  Methodist 
Church  (if  thev  teach  the  duty  of  translating  the  Scriptures 
into  all  languages,  as  I  believe  they  do)  contain  a  clear 
declaration  of  the  Calvinistic  system  of  doctrine  which,  as 
w^e  believe,  is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

3.  He  quotes  again  from  Chapter  YII.,  Section  G,  the 
declaration  that  "  the  ordinances  of  the  new  covenant  differ 
from  those  of  the  old  in  that  the  Gospel  is  held  forth  in 
them  in  more  fullness,  evidence,  and  spiritual  efficacy  to  all 
nations."     On  this  I  will  make  no  connnent. 

4.  The  last  citation  which  he  makes,  in  his  judgment 
settles  the  question.  He  says :  "  It  may  be  asserted,  with- 
out fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  this  Section  3  of 
Chapter  YII.  contains  all  that  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  asks,  i.  e.^  a 
full  recognition  of  the  universal  sufficient  jpro^ision  and 
the  free  offer  of  salvation  to  allP  But  does  it  ?  Let  us 
quote  the  whole  section  :  "  Mail,  by  his  fall  having  made 
himself  incapable  of  life  by  that  covenant  [the  covenant  of 
works],  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  make  a  second,  commonly 
called  the  covenant  of  grace,  wherein  he  freely  offered 
unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring 
of  them  faith  in  him  that  they  may  be  saved,  promising 
to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  life  the  Lloly 
Spirit  to  make  them  willing  to  believe."  Now,  on  the  face 
of  it,  this  section  says  not  one  word  about,  nor  makes  the 
least  allusion  to,  the  universal  ^w^oiQwi  provision  of  salva- 
tion for  all.  It  does  not  even  affirm  that  the  Gospel  is  of- 
fered to  all  sinners.     But  let  us  look  a  little  further  and 

see  what  this  covenant  is  wherein  life  and  salvation  are 
freely  offered  to  sinners.  Surely  the  offers  here  spoken  of 
cannot  go  beyond  the  intent  and  purpose  of  the  covenant 
loherein  they  are  made,  even  as  the  stream  cannot  rise 
higher  than  its  fountain.     The  second  covenant  is  thus  de- 


80  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

scribed  iu  the  Shorter  Catechisra,  Q.  20:  "God,  having 
out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure  from  all  eternity,  elected 
some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace 
to  deliver  them  out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  and  to 
bring  them  into  an  estate  of  salvation  by  a  Eedeemer." 
Xow,  I  submit  to  Dr.  Warfield  that  he  has  not  made  out 
his  case.  Neither  this  nor  any  other  section  of  the  Con- 
fession which  he  has  quoted  contains  the  declarations  in  re- 
gard to  which  I  Lave  said  the  Confession  is  deficient. 

It  is  hardly  needful  for  .me  to  say  that  I  thoroughly  be- 
lieve in  the  special  love  of  God  for  some — that  is,  for  the 
elect — and  gladly  admit  that  the  Confession  contains  the 
best  statement  of  this  doctrine  ever  formulated  by  unin- 
spired men.  But  I  believe  also,  and  so  does  Dr.  Warfield, 
in  the  infinite  love  of  Qodifor  all  shiners,  including  the 
non-elect,  even  the  love  that  yearned  over  Ephraim  and 
wept  over  Jerusalem,  and  says  to  all  the  impenitent,  "  How 
often  would  I  have  gathered  you,  and  ye  would  not."  As 
the  banner  of  a  missionary  Church,  and  a  professed  state- 
ment of  the  whole  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  Confession  "ought  to  contain  some  clear,  ex- 
plicit, and  luminous  declaration  of  a  truth  which  underlies 
all  true  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  all  Christian  activity 
for  the  conversion  of  the  world.  Its  deficiency  in  this  re- 
gard is  real  and  not  imaginary.  It  is  far  better  to  admit 
and  seek  to  amend  this  defect  than  to  deny  or  defend  it  by 
far-fctclied  arguments  and  doubtful  inferences.  Some  such 
amendments  as  I  have  proposed  to  the  third  chapter,  which 
is  the  proper  place  to  insert  it,  would  neither  mar  the  Con- 
fession nor  impair  our  orthodoxy.  But  it  would  take  away 
a  reproach  from  the  name  of  Calvinism  and  bring  our 
Standards  nearer  to  the  faith,  the  love,  and  the  zeal  of  the 
Church. 

Henrt  J.  Yan  Dyke. 


XI. 
LETTER  BY   PEOF.   SHEDD. 

The  question  whether  the  Westminster  Confession  shall 
be  revised,  has  been  properly  referred  to  the  whole  Church 
represented  by  the  Presbyteries.  The  common  sentiment 
of  the  denomination  must  determine  the  matter.  The  ex- 
pression of  opinion  during  the  few  months  prior  to  the 
Presbyterial  action  is,  therefore,  of  consequence.  It  is  de- 
sirable that  it  should  be  a  full  expression  of  all  varieties  of 
views,  and  as  a  contribution  toward  it,  we  purpose  to  assign 
some  reasons  why  the  revision  of  the  Confession  is  not  ex- 
pedient. 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  is  inexpedient,  because  in  its  ex- 
isting form  as  drawn  up  by  the  Westminster  Assembly  it 
has  met,  and  well  met,  all  the  needs  of  the  Church  for  the 
past  -two  centuries.  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  since  1700  has  passed  through  a  varied  and 
sometimes  difficult  experience.  The  controversies  in  the 
beginning  between  the  Old  and  New  Lights,  and  still  more 
the  vehement  disputes  that  resulted  in  the  division  of  the 
Church  in  183Y,  have  tried  the  common  symbol  as  severely 
as  it  is  ever  likely  to  be.  But  through  them  all  both  theo- 
logical divisions  were  content  ^vith  the  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms as  they  stood,  and  both  alike  claimed  to  be  true  to 
them.  Neither  party  demanded  a  revision  on  any  doctrinal 
points;  and  both  alike  found  in  them  a  satisfactory  expres- 
sion of  their  faith.  What  is  there  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  to-day  that  necessitates  any  different  statement 
of  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  of  atonement,  of  regeneration, 

(81) 


82  CONFESSIONAL  KEVISION. 

or  of  punishment,  from  tliat  accepted  bj  the  Presbyterian 
Clmrch  of  1837  or  1789  ?  Are  the  statements  upon  these 
points  any  more  liable  to  misconception  or  misrepresenta- 
tion by  non-Calvinists  now  than  they  were  fifty  or  a  hun- 
dred years  ago  ?  Are  there  any  more  "  weak  consciences  " 
requiring  softening  explanations  and  relaxing  clauses  in  the 
Church  of  to-day  than  in  former  periods  ?  And  with  ref- 
erence to  the  allowable  differences  of  theological  opinion 
within  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  not  a  creed  that  was 
adopted  and  defended  by  Charles  Hodge  and  Albert  Barnes 
sufficiently  broad  to  include  all  who  are  really  Calvinistic 
and  Presbyterian  in  belief  ?  What  is  there,  we  repeat,  in 
the  condition  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day  that 
makes  the  old  Confession  of  the  past  two  hundred  years 
inadequate  as  a  doctrinal  Standard  ?  All  the  past  successes 
and  victories  of  Presbyterianism  have  been  accomplished 
under  it.  Success  in  the  past  is  guaranty  for  success  in  the 
future.  Is  it  not  better  for  the  Church  to  work  on  the 
very  same  old  base,  in  the  very  same  straight  line  ? 

2.  Kevision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  reunion  of  the 
two  divisions  of  the  Church  was  founded  upon  the  Confes- 
sion as  it  now  stands.  A  proposition  to  unite  the  two 
branches  of  Presbyterianism  by  first  revising  the  West- 
minster documents  would  have  failed,  because  in  the  re- 
vision individual  and  party  preferences  would  have  shown 
themselves.  But  when  the  Standards,  pure  and  simple, 
were  laid  down  as  the  only  terms  of  union,  the  whole  mass 
of  Presbyterians  flowed  together.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  if 
a  revision  of  the  Confession  should  take  place,  there  will 
be  a  dissatisfied  portion  of  the  Church  who  will  prefer  to 
remain  upon  the  historic  foundation  ;  that  the  existing 
harmony  will  be  disturbed ;  and  that  the  proposed  meas- 
ures for  union  with  other  Presbyterian  bodies  will  fall 
through. 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  83 

3.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  will  introduce 
new  difficulties.  The  explanations  will  need  to  be  explained. 
Tlie  revision  that  is  called  for  is  said  by  its  more  conserva- 
tive advocates,  not  to  be  an  alteration  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Confession,  but  an  exj^lanation  only.  Now  good  and 
sufficient  explanations  of  a  creed  require  more  space  than 
can  be  afforded  in  a  concise  symbol  intended  for  use  in  in- 
ducting officers  and  members.  Such  full  and  careful  ex- 
planations have  been  made  all  along  from  the  beginning, 
and  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication  has  issued  a 
large  and  valuable  library  of  them.  I^o  one  need  be  in 
any  doubt  respecting  the  meaning  of  the  Confession  who 
will  carefully  peruse  one  or  more  of  them.  He  who  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  Westminster  doctrine  as  so  explained,  will 
not  be  satisfied  with  it  at  all.  But  if  brief  explanations  are 
inserted  into  the  Confession  itself,  their  brevity  will  inevi- 
tably expose  them  to  misunderstanding  and  misconception. 
Take  an  illustration.  An  able  minister  and  divine,  whose 
Calvinism  is  unimpeachable,  suggests  that  Confession  III.  3 
shall  read,  "By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of 
His  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  [for  their  sins]  to 
everlasting  death."  If  the  clause  in  brackets  is  inserted 
without  further  explanation,  the  article  might  fairly  and 
naturally  be  understood  to  teach  that  the  reason  why  God 
passes  by  a  sinner  in  the  bestowment  of  regenerating  grace 
is  the  sinner's  sin.  But  St.  Paul  expressly  says  that  the 
sinner's  sin  is  not  the  cause  of  his  non-election  to  regener- 
ation. "  The  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having 
done  any  good  or  evil,  it  was  said,  the  elder  shall  serve  the 
younger.  Esau  have  I  hated"  (Pom.  x.  11-13).  The  rea- 
son for  the  difference  between  the  elect  and  non-elect  is  not 
the  holiness  or  the  sin  of  either  of  them,  but  God's  sover- 
eig7i  good  pleasure.     "He  hath  mercy  on  whom  He  will 


84  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

have  mercy,  and  whom  He  will  He  hardeneth  "  (Rom.  ix. 
18).  An  explanation  like  this,  without  further  explanation 
such  as  the  proposer  would  undoubtedly  make,  would  not 
only  contradict  Scripture,  but  change  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine into  the  Armiuian.  The  reason  for  non-election 
would  no  longer  be  secret  and  sovereign,  but  known  and 
conditional.  All  this  liability  to  misconstruction  is  avoided 
by  the  Confession  itself  as  it  now  stands.  For  in  Confes- 
sion III.  7,  after  saying  that  the  "  passing  by  "  in  the  bestow- 
ment  of  regenerating  grace  is  an  act  of  God's  sovereign 
pleasure,  "  whereby  He  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as 
He  pleaseth,"  it  then  adds  that  "  the  ordaining  to  dishonor 
and  wrath^''  is  "for  sin."  Sin  is  here  represented  as  the 
reason  for  the  judicial  act  of  punishment,  but  not  for  the 
sovereign  act  of  not  regenerating.  The  only  reason  for  the 
latter,  our  Lord  gives  in  His  "  Even  so.  Father,  for  so  it 
seemed  good  in  Thy  sight." 

Other  illustrations  might  be  given  of  the  difficulty  of 
avoiding  misconception  when  a  systematic  creed  is  sought 
to  be  explained,  particularly  in  its  difficult  points,  by  the 
brief  interpolation  of  words  and  clauses.  The  method  is 
too  short.  More  space  is  required  than  can  be  spared.  It 
is  better,  therefore,  to  let  a  carefully  constructed  and  con- 
cisely phrased  creed  like  the  Westminster  stand  exactly  as 
it  was  drawn  up  by  the  sixty-nine  commissioners,  in  the 
five  weekly  sessions  for  nearly  nine  years,  and  have  it  ex- 
plained, qualified,  and  defended  in  published  treatises,  in 
sermons,  and  especially  in  catechetical  lectures.  Had  the 
ministry  been  as  faithful  as  it  should  in  years  past  in 
catechetical  instruction,  there  would  be  little  difficulty  in 
understanding  the  Westminster  creed.  The  remedy  need- 
ed is  in  this  direction,  not  in  that  of  a  revision. 

4.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  there  is  no  end  to  tlie 
]>rocess.     It  is  like  the  letting  out  of  water.     The  doctrino 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  85 

of  the  divine  decrees  is  the  particular  one  selected  by  the 
Presbytery  whose  request  has  brought  the  subject  of  revis- 
ion before  the  General  Assembly.  But  this  doctrine  runs 
entirely  through  the  Westminster  documents,  so  that  if 
changes  were  made  merely  in  Chapter  III.  of  the  Confession, 
this  chapter  would  be  wholly  out  of  harmony  with  the  re- 
mainder. Effectual  calling,  regeneration,  perseverance  of 
the  saints,  are  all  linked  in  with  the  divine  decree.  The 
most  cursory  perusal  will  show  that  a  revision  of  the  Con- 
fession on  this  one  subject  would  amount  to  an  entire  re- 
casting of  the  creed. 

5.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  may  abridge  the 
liberty  of  interpretation  now  afforded  by  the  Confession. 
As  an  example  of  the  variety  in  explanation  admitted  by 
the  creed  as  it  now  stands,  take  the  statement  that  "  God 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  beginning,  cre- 
ated or  made  from  nothing  the  world,  and  all  things  there- 
in, in  the  space  of  six  days."  He  who  holds  the  j^atristic 
view  that  the  days  of  Genesis  were  periods,  and  he  who 
holds  the  modern  opinion  that  the  days  were  solar,  can 
subscribe  to  the  Westminster  statement.  But  if  revised  in 
the  interest  of  either  view,  the  subscriber  is  shut  up  to  it 
alone.  Another  example  is  found  in  the  statement  respect- 
ing the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin.  The  advocate  of  natural 
union,  or  of  representative  union,  or  of  both  in  combina- 
tion, can  find  a  foothold,  provided  only  that  he  holds  to  the 
penal  nature  of  the  first  sin.  Another  instance  is  the  article 
concerning  "  elect  infants."  As  the  tenet  was  formulated 
by  the  Assembly,  it  may  mean  (a)  that  all  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  elected  as  a  class,  some  being  saved  by  cove- 
nanted mercy,  and  some  by  uncovenanted  mercy ;  (h)  that 
all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  elected  as  a  class — all  alike, 
those  within  the  Church  and  those  outside  of  it,  being 
saved  by  divine  mercy,  nothing  being  said  of  the  covenant; 


86  CONFESSIONAL  KEVISION. 

{c)  that  some  dying  infants  are  elect,  and  some  non-elect. 
Probably  each  of  these  opinions  had  its  representatives  in 
the  Assembly,  and  hence  the  indefinite  form  of  the  state- 
ment. The  writer  regards  the  first-mentioned  view  as  best 
supported  by  Scripture  and  the  analogy  of  faith ;  but  there 
are  many  who  advocate  the  second  view,  and  perhaps  there 
may  be  some  who  hold  the  third.  The  liberty  of  opinion 
now  conceded  by  the  Confession  on  a  subject  respecting 
which  the  Scripture  data  are  few,  would  be  ill  exchanged 
for  a  stricter  statement  that  would  admit  of  but  one  mean- 
ing. 

6.  Eevision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, as  it  now  reads,  is  a  sufiiciently  broad  and  liberal 
creed.  We  do  not  say  that  it  is  sufficiently  broad  and  lib- 
eral for  every  man  and  every  denomination ;  but  it  is  as 
broad  and  liberal  for  a  Calvinist  as  any  Calvinist  should 
desire.  For  whoever  professes  Calvinism,  professes  a  pre- 
cise form  of  doctrine.  He  expects  to  keep  within  definite 
metes  and  bounds ;  he  is  not  one  of  those  religionists  who 
start  from  no  premises,  and  come  to  no  conclusions,  and 
hold  no  tenets.  The  Presbyterian  Church  is  a  Calvinistic 
Church.  It  will  be  the  beginning  of  its  decline,  as  it 
already  has  been  of  some  Calvinistic  denominations,  when 
it  begins  to  swerve  from  this  dogmatic  position.  It  must 
tlierefore  be  distinguished  among  the  Churches  for  doc- 
trinal consistency,  comprehensiveness,  and  firmness.  But 
inside  of  the  metes  and  bounds  estabhshed  by  divine  reve- 
lation, and  to  which  it  has  voluntarily  confined  itself,  it  has 
a  liberty  that  is  as  large  as  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  cannot 
get  outside  of  that  kingdom,  and  should  not  desire  to.  But 
within  it,  it  is  as  free  to  career  as  a  ship  in  the  ocean,  as  an 
eagle  in  the  air.  Yet  the  ship  cannot  sail  beyond  the 
ocean,  nor  the  eagle  fly  beyond  the  sky.  Liberty  within 
the  immeasurable  bounds  and  limits  of  God's  truth,  is  the 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  87 

only  true  liberty.  All  else  is  license.  The  Westminster 
Confession,  exactly  as  it  now  reads,  has  been  the  creed  of 
as  free  and  enlarged  intellects  as  ever  lived  on  earth.  The 
substance  of  it  Avas  the  strong  and  fertile  root  of  the  two 
freest  movements  in  modern  history — that  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation  and  that  of  Republican  Government.  No 
Presbyterian  should  complain  that  the  creed  of  his  Church 
is  narrow  and  stifling. 

And  here  we  notice  an  objection  urged  against  the  Con- 
fession relative  to  the  tenet  of  limited  redemption.  It  is 
said  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  broad  and  liberal  in  announc- 
ing the  boundless  compassion  of  God  toward  all  men  hidis- 
criminately,  and  in  inviting  all  men  without  exception  to 
cast  themselves  upon  it.  But  read  and  ponder  the  follow- 
ing statements : 

"  Repentance  unto  life  is  an  evangelical  grace,  the  doctrine  whereof 
is  to  be  preached  in  season  and  out  of  season  by  every  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  as  well  as  that  of  faith  in  Christ.  It  is  every  man's  duty  to 
endeavor  to  repent  of  his  particular  sins  particularly.  Every  man  is 
bound  to  make  private  confession  of  his  sins  to  God,  praying  for  the 
pardon  thereof,  upon  which,  and  the  forsaking  of  them,  he  shall  find 
mercy.  Prayer  with  thanksgiving  being  one  special  part  of  religious 
worship,  is  by  God  required  of  all  men.  Prayer  is  to  be  made  for  all 
sorts  of  men  living,  or  that  shall  live  hereafter,  but  not  for  the  dead. 
God  is  to  be  worshipped  everywhere  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  and  in  se- 
cret each  one  by  himself.  God  in  His  Word,  by  a  positive  moral  Com- 
mandment, binds  all  men  in  all  ages.  The  grace  of  God  is  manifested 
in  the  second  covenant,  in  that  He  freely  provideth  and  offereth  to  sin. 
ners  a  Mediator,  and  life  and  salvation  in  Him.  The  ministry  of  the 
Gospel  testifies  that  whosoever  believes  in  Christ  shall  be  saved,  and 
excludes  none  that  will  come  unto  Him.  God  is  able  to  search  the 
heart,  hear  the  requests,  pardon  the  sins,  and  fulfil  the  desires  of  all." 

These  declarations,  scattered  broadcast  through  the  West- 
minster Confession  and  Catechisms,  teach  the  universality 
of  the  Gospel,  except  no  human  creature  from  the  offer  of 
it,  and  exclude  no  human  creature  from  its  benefits.    Their 


88  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

consistency  witli  the  doctrine  of  election  is  assumed,  but 
not  explained,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  And  no  revis- 
ion of  this,  by  the  mere  interpolation  of  a  few  words  or 
clauses,  will  make  the  subject  any  clearer  or  stop  all  objec- 
tions. 

7.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  Westminster 
Standards  already  make  full  provision  for  those  exceptional 
cases,  on  account  of  which  revision  is  claimed  by  its  advo- 
cates to  be  needed.  It  is  said  that  there  are  some  true  be- 
lievers in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  cannot  adopt  all  the 
Westminster  statements,  who  yet  should  not  be,  and  actually 
are  not,  excluded  from  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  that  there 
are  tender  consciences  of  good  men  whose  scruples  are  to 
be  respected.  But  these  cases  are  referred  by  the  Form  of 
Government  to  the  church  Session,  and  power  is  given  to 
it  to  receive  into  membership  any  person  who  trusts  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sin,  although  his  doc- 
trinal knowledge  and  belief  may  be  unsatisfactory  on  some 
points.  He  may  stumble  at  predestination,  but  if  with  the 
publican  he  cries,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  he 
has  the  root  of  the  matter  in  him  and  is  a  regenerate  child 
of  God.  But  why  should  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church 
revise  its  entire  creed  so  as  to  make  it  fit  these  exceptional 
cases?  Why  should  the  mountain  go  to  Mohammed? 
Why  should  a  genuine  but  deficient  evangelical  knowledge 
and  experience  be  set  up  as  the  type  of  doctrine  for  the 
wliole  denomination?  These  "babes  in  Christ"  need  the 
education  of  tlie  full  and  complete  system  of  truth,  and 
should  gradually  be  led  up  to  it,  instead  of  bringing  the 
system  down  to  their  level.  There  is  sometimes  a  miscon- 
ception at  this  point.  We  have  seen  it  stated  that  the  mem- 
bership of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  required  or  ex- 
pected to  hold  the  same  doctrine  with  the  officers ;  that  the 
pastor,  elders,  and  deacons  must  accept  the  Confession  of 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  89 

Faitli  ''  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,''  but  that  the  congregation  need  not.  But 
this  error  arises  from  confounding  the  toleration  of  a  defi- 
ciency with  the  endorsement  of  it.  Because  a  church  Ses- 
sion tolerates  in  a  particular  person  who  gives  evidence  of 
faith  in  Christ  an  error  respecting  foreordination,  or  even 
some  abstruse  point  in  the  Trinity  or  the  incarnation,  it 
does  not  thereby  endorse  the  error.  It  does  not  sanction 
his  opinion  on  these  subjects,  but  only  endures  it,  in  view 
of  his  religious  experience  on  the  vital  points  of  faith  and 
repentance,  and  with  the  hope  that  his  subsequent  growth 
in  knowledge  will  bring  him  to  the  final  rejection  of  it. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  tolerates  theatre-going  in  some 
of  its  members — that  is  to  say,  it  does  not  discipline  them 
for  it.  But  it  does  not  formally  approve  of  and  sanction 
theatre-going.  A  proposition  to  revise  the  Confession  by 
inserting  a  clause  to  this  effect,  in  order  to  meet  the  wishes 
and  practice  of  theatre-going  church  members,  would  be 
voted  down  by  the  Presbyteries. 

The  position  that  the  oflScers  of  a  church  may  have  one 
creed,  and  the  membership  another,  is  untenable.  No 
church  could  live  and  thrive  upon  it.  A  Trinitarian  clergy 
preaching  to  an  Arian  or  Socinian  membership,  would 
preach  to  unwilling  hearers.  And  although  the  difference 
is  not  so  great  and  so  vital,  yet  a  Calvinistic  clergy  preach- 
ing to  an  Arminian  membership,  or  an  Arminian  clergy  to 
a  Calvinistic  membership,  would  on  some  points  find  un- 
sympathetic auditors.  Pastor  and  people,  officers  and  mem- 
bers, must  be  homogeneous  in  doctrine,  in  order  to  a  vigor- 
ous church-life.  If,  therefore,  a  certain  class  of  members 
is  received  into  a  church,  who  do  not  on  all  points  agree 
with  the  Church  creed,  this  is  not  to  be  understood  as 
giving  the  members  generally  a  hberty  to  depart  from  the 
Church  creed,  or  to  be  a  reason  for  revising  it. 


90  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

The  case  is  different  with  the  officers  of  the  church. 
There  is  no  exceptional  class  in  this  instance.  Neither  the 
Session  nor  the  Presbytery  have  any  authority  to  dispense 
with  the  acceptance  of  any  part  of  tlie  Confession  of  Faith, 
when  a  pastor,  elder,  or  deacon  is  inducted  into  office. 
There  is  no  toleration  of  defective  views  provided  for,  when 
those  who  are  to  teach  and  rule  the  Church  are  put  into  the 
ministry.  And  this  for  the  good  reason  that  ministers  and 
elders  are  expected  to  be  so  well  indoctrinated,  that  they 
ai'e  "apt  to  teach''  and  competent  to  "rule  well."  Some 
propose  "  loose  subscription  "  as  a  remedy,  when  candidates 
of  lax  or  unsettled  views  present  themselves  for  licensure 
and  ordination.  This  is  demoralizing,  and  kills  all  simplic- 
ity and  godly  sincerity.  Better  a  thousand  times  for  a 
denomination  to  alter  its  creed,  than  to  allow  its  ministry 
to  "palter  with  words  in  a  double  meaning";  than  to  per- 
mit an  Arian  subscription  to  the  JSTicene  Symbol,  an  Ar- 
minian  subscription  to  the  A¥estminster  Confession,  a 
Calvinistic  subscription  to  the  Articles  of  Wesley,  a  Ees- 
torationist  subscription  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment. 

For  these  reasons,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  proposed  re- 
vision of  the  Westminster  Confession  is  not  wise  or  ex- 
pedient. The  revision  of  a  denominational  creed  is  a  rare 
occurrence  in  ecclesiastical  history.  Commonly  a  denomi- 
nation remains  from  first  to  last  upon  the  base  that  was  laid 
for  it  in  the  beginning  by  its  fathers  and  founders.  And 
when  revision  does  occur,  it  is  seldom  in  the  direction  of 
fullness  and  precision.  Usually  the  alteration  is  in  favor 
of  vague  and  looser  statements.  Even  slight  changes  are 
apt  to  be  followed  by  greater  ones.  The  disposition  to  re- 
vise and  alter,  needs  watching.  In  an  age  when  the  gen- 
eral drift  of  the  unregenerate  world  is  away  from  the  strong 
statements  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  of  Christ  and  His  in- 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  91 

spired  Apostles,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the 
regenerate  Church,  in  all  its  denominations,  should  stand 
tirm  in  the  old  paths,  and  hold  fast  to  that  "  Word  of  God 
which  is  sharper  than  a  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to 
the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit." 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 


XII. 

DE.  ya:^  dyke  on  peof.  shedd's  letter 

Whatever  Dr.  Shedd  writes,  is  lil^e  himself  :  clear  and 
without  guile  as  the  cloudless  sky.  His  recent  article  in 
tlie  Evangelist  will  be  regarded  by  many  as  the  ablest  argu- 
ment hitherto  presented  on  the  negative  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. Keeping  constantly  in  view  his  admirable  example 
of  candor  and  courtesy,  I  propose  to  review  his  seven  rea- 
sons against  the  expediency  of  revising  the  Confession  of 
Faith. 

1.  "In  its  existing  form  the  Confession  has  well  met  all 

the  needs  of  the  Church  for  the  past  two  centuries 

All  the  past  victories  and  successes  of  Presbyterianism 
have  been  accomplished  under  it.  Success  in  tlie  past,  is 
the  guarantee  for  success  in  the  future."  To  wliich  we 
answer ;  (1)  not  every  sequence  is  a  consequence  ;  (2)  the 
exclusive  connection  between  the  Confession  of  Faith,  es- 
pecially those  portions  of  the  Confession  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  amend,  and  the  past  success  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  is  not  very  apparent.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the 
greater  part  of  this  success  may  be  due  to  other  causes. 
The  Methodist  Church  has  grown  faster  than  we  have.  So 
of  late  years  has  the  Episcopal  Church.  Are  these  results 
attributable  to  their  rejection  of  our  Confession  ?  (3).  Suc- 
cess in  the  past  is  not  the  guarantee  for  success  in  the 
future,  except  so  far  as  the  future  shall  imitate  the  past  in 
adapting  itself  to  changed  conditions.  The  Presbyterian 
Chm-ch  of  Scotland  had  wonderful  success  for  a  century 
(92; 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  03 

under  her  old  Confession.  She  swept  Popery  out  of  the 
land,  and  set  up  the  Keformed  faith.  Yet  she  did  not 
hesitate  to  lay  aside  the  old,  and  adopt  the  Westminster 
Confession.  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country  suc- 
ceeded well  for  a  hundred  years,  before  she  adopted  the 
Westminster  Standards,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  revise  them, 
in  order  to  make  that  adoption  possible.  The  question  now 
before  us,  is  whether  another  revision  has  not  become 
necessary,  in  order  to  adapt  the  Confession  to  the  present 
condition  and  wants  of  the  Church.  To  settle  this  ques- 
tion upon  the  principle  of  letting  well  enough  alone,  is  not 
true  conservatism,  but  a  blind  worshipping  of  the  past,  vdth 
which  our  fathers  seem  to  have  had  no  sympathy. 

2.  "  The  Peunion  of  the  two  divisions  of  the  Church 

was  founded  on  the  Confession  as  it  now  stands It 

is  to  be  feared  that  if  a  revision  should  take  place,  there 
will  be  a  dissatisfied  portion  of  the  Church  who  would  pre- 
fer to  remain  upon  the  historic  foundation."  (1).  There 
is  reason  to  fear  that  if  revision  does  not  take  place,  there 
will  be  a  still  larger  dissatisfied  portion  of  the  Church,  and 
thus  while  we  avoid  Scylla,  we  may  run  into  Chary bdis,  by 
keeping  the  helm  down  too  hard.  (2).  The  revision  now 
proposed  is  no  more  radical,  and  will  no  more  change  the 
foundations,  than  the  revisions  already  accomplished  since 
the  Keunion.  The  Book  of  Discipline  and  the  Form  of 
Government  are  just  as  historic  as  the  Confession  is.  (3). 
Tliere  is  no  indication  that  the  revision  now  proposed  will 
open  the  old  controversies  between  the  Old  and  New 
Schools,  which  were  happily  closed  by  the  Reunion.  That 
Reunion  was  based  not  on  "the  Confession  as  it  now 
stands^''  but  upon  the  Standards  as  they  then  vaere,  and  in- 
cluded no  pledge  that  these  Standards  should  never  be  altered. 
The  Standards  themselves  provide  for  their  own  amend- 
ment; and  they  have  5^(f?i largely  amended  since  the  Reunion. 


94  CONFESSIONAL  EEVISION. 

3  and  4.  Dr.  Shedd's  third  and  fourth  reasons  against  re- 
vision, are  but  two  phases  of  the  same  argument.  In  the 
tirsthe  says  it  ""  will  introduce  new  difficulties :  the  explana- 
tions will  need  to  be  explained."  In  the  second  he  says 
''  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  there  is  no  end  to  the 
process;  it  is  like  the  letting  out  of  water."  (1).  Yerj 
well,  we  admit  that  there  is  no  end  to  the  process.  And  so 
long  as  the  Bible  is  our  supreme  standard,  to  which  all  hu- 
man Confessions  are  subordinate,  and  so  long  as  men  differ 
in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  there  can  be  no  end  to  the 
process.  It  is  in  that  very  process  that  the  life  of  the 
Church  largely  consists,  under  the  perpetual  guidance  of 
God's  providence  and  Spirit.  If  it  were  otherwise,  there 
would  be  no  need  of  Confessions  at  all,  nor  even  of  theolog- 
ical seminaries  and  teachers  of  divinity.  (2).  But  if  Dr. 
Sliedd  means  that  there  is  at  this  time  any  special  risk  in 
revising  our  creed  beyond  what  existed,  for  example,  in  the 
days  of  the  Westminster  Assembly ;  if  he  means  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day  cannot  be  trusted  to  revise 
her  own  creed,  lest  she  should  break  more  than  she  mends, 
I  must  beg  leave  to  differ  with  him  entirely.  That  illustra- 
tion of  the  letting  out  of  water,  is  a  good  one ;  but  to  my 
mind,  it  bears  a  warning  exactly  opposite  from  what  it  sug- 
gests to  Dr.  Shedd.  It  is  better  to  let  the  water  run  in 
legitimate  channels.  If  we  keep  the  flood-gates  screwed 
down  just  where  the  Westminster  Assembly  left  them,  the 
flood-tides  of  thought,  of  zeal,  and  of  missionary  spirit — in 
regard  to  which  the  Church  in  our  day  will  suffer  nothing 
by  comparison  with  the  Church  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  ago — may  make  a  way  for  themselves  more  sweeping 
and  destructive  than  any  revision  under  our  constitutional 
restrictions  can  possibly  be.  (3).  There  never  has  been, 
and  I  do  not  believe  there  ever  will  be,  a  better  time  for 
such  a  revision  than  the  present.     The  gates  of  the  Ecclesi- 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  05 

astical  Janus  are  shut.  The  spirit  of  peace  and  the  longing 
for  unity  are  not  hindrances,  but  helps.  It  would  be  easy 
to  show  that  the  providential  preparation  and  the  divine 
guidance  which  have  been  so  largely  claimed  for  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  belong  as  fully  and  as  manifestly  to  us 
as  to  them. 

5.  ''  Eevision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  may  abridge  the 
liberty  of  interpretation  now  afforded  by  the  Confession." 
In  this  quotation  I  have  italicised  the  word  may,  for  that 
is  the  point  of  the  whole  objection.  Dr.  Shedd  does  not 
affirm  that  it  will  abridge  the  liberty  of  interpretation,  but  he 
gives  a  timely  w^arning  when  he  says  that  it  may.  Very  well ; 
let  us  heed  the  warning,  and  see  to  it  that  if  the  revision 
takes  place,  it  does  not  restrict  the  right  of  private  judgment 
which  is  now  freely  exercised  by  us  all.  I  cannot  see  any 
danger  of  such  a  result  in  any  of  the  amendments  hitherto 
proposed.  (I).  In  regard  to  the  six  days  of  creation,  some 
may  havq  objected  to  the  Confession,  under  the  misappre- 
hension that  it  interprets  the  days  to  mean  periods  of  twen- 
ty-four hours ;  but  when  it  is  understood  that  the  Confession 
(tlie  Catechisms  also)  simply  transfers  without  expounding 
the  language  of  Scripture,  no  advocate  of  revision  will  be  in 
favor  of  amending  it  at  this  point.  (2).  As  to  "elect  in- 
fants," while  for  one  I  would  prefer  to  change  the  phrase 
to  ''^  all  infants,"  and  cannot  see  that  it  would  narrow  the 
Confession  to  put  into  it  what  the  whole  Presbyterian 
Church  believes,  yet  the  advocates  of  revision  would  be  sat- 
isfied to  omit  all  reference  to  infants  as  a  special  class,  and 
let  the  section  read,  "  All  elect  persons  who  are  incapa]:)le  of 
being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  are 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when, 
where,  and  how  He  pleaseth  "  (Chap.  X.,  Sec.  3).  What 
restriction  of  liberty  w^ould  be  involved  in  this  amendment? 
The  advantages  gained  by  getting  rid  of  the  strife-produc- 


96  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

ing  ambiguity,  "  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,"  are  obvious, 
and  need  not  be  repeated. 

6.  "  The  Confession  as  it  now  reads  is  a  sufficiently  broad 
and  liberal  creed ;  ....  it  is  as  broad  and  liberal  for  a 
Calvinist  as  any  Calvinist  should  desire." 

Without  any  discussion  of  what  is  meant  by  hroad  and 
liberal  in  this  connection,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  am 
a  Calvinist,  thoroughly  agreeing  with  Dr.  Shedd  in  all  that 
he  says  about  the  importance  of  a  definite  creed  within  the 
limits  of  God's  truth,  and  claiming  as  he  does  to  be  as  free 
within  those  limits  as  ''  a  ship  on  the  ocean,  or  an  eagle  in 
the  air."  But  for  these  very  reasons  I  am  in  favor  of  re- 
vising the  Confession,  and  amending  some  of  its  statements. 
So  far  as  it  applies  to  me,  Dr.  Shedd  is  mistaken  when  he 
says  "  an  objection  is  urged  against  the  Confession  relative 
to  the  tenet  of  limited  Tede7iii])tion^'^  Here  again  I  will 
not  dispute  about  words.  But  I  believe  that  redem])tion 
used  as  a  comprehensive  term  for  the  ultimate  results  of 
Christ's  mediation  in  behalf  of  men,  is  limited  in  fact  to 
those  who,  to  use  Paul's  expression,  receive  the  atonement. 
But  I  believe  also  that  God's  love  to  men,  which  prompted 
the  gift  of  His  Son  to  the  world,  is  unlimited,  except  by 
the  bounds  of  the  human  race,  that  Christ  offered  a  sacrifice 
and  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world ;  and  that  the  salvation  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel 
is  sufficient  for  all,  adapted  to  all,  and  offered  to  all,  so  that 
"  no  man  is  lost  for  the  want  of  an  atonement,  or  because 
there  is  any  other  barrier  in  the  way  of  his  salvation  than 
his  own  most  free  and  wicked  will"  (Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge, 
"  Outlines  of  Theology,"  p.  420).  These  statements  are 
abundantly  warranted  by  Scripture.  And  in  regard  to 
them  we  affirm  that  our  Confession  of  Faith  is  sadly  de- 
ficient as  a  summary  of  Scripture  doctrine.  Dr.  Shedd  has 
sincerely  and  ably  endeavored  to  prove  the  contrary.     But 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  97 

even  he  has  failed ;  and  what  can  the  man  do  that  conieth 
after  the  King?  Not  one  of  the  fragments  he  has  skilfully 
woven  together  out  of  the  Confession,  nor  all  of  them  com- 
bined, can  be  accepted  as  a  declaration  of  God's  infinite 
love  for  all  men,  and  of  the  infinite  sufficiency  and  universal 
offer  of  the  Gospel.  They  were  not  intended,  as  their  con- 
nection shows,  to  teach  any  such  doctrine,  and  they  do  not 
teach  it.  But  even  if  they  could  be  logically  construed 
into  such  a  conclusion,  a  truth  so  clearly  taught  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  so  vital  in  its  connection  w^ith  the  missionary  zeal 
and  preaching  of  the  Church,  ought  not  to  be  left  for  theo- 
logians to  deduce  out  of  the  Confession ;  it  ought  to  be 
emblazoned  on  her  Standards  so  clearly  that  he  who  runs 
may  read  it. 

7.  Under  his  seventh  reason.  Dr.  Shedd  inadvertently 
puts  the  advocates  of  revision  in  a  position  they  are  not 
wilHng  to  occupy.  He  says,  "Revision  is  inexpedient, 
because  the  Westminster  Standards  already  make  full  pro- 
vision for  those  exceptional  cases  on  account  of  which  re- 
vision is  claimed  by  its  advocates  to  be  needed."  No  one 
has  asked  for  revision  on  account  of  any  exceptional  cases. 
The  pleading  for  exceptional  cases  is  all  on  the  other  side — 
in  behalf  of  some  who  may  hold  the  supralapsarian  theory 
of  God's  eternal  decree,  or  the  possible  damnation  of  some 
"  infants  dying  in  infancy."  Thank  God  these  are  excep- 
tional cases !  When  we  advocate  such  an  amendment  of 
the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession  as  will  purge  it  from 
all  suspicion  of  teaching  that  God  creates  men  on  purpose 
to  damn  them,  and  such  an  amendment  of  the  tenth  chap- 
ter as  will  take  away  all  ])retext  for  the  charge  that  we  be- 
lieve some  dying  infants  are  not  elect,  and  such  an  addition 
to  the  whole  Confession  as  will  make  it  clearly  declare 
God's  infinite  love  and  wilHugness  f(jr  the  salvation  of  all 
men — w^e  are  seeking  not  to  provide  for  exceptional  cases, 


98  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

but  to  briug  our  Standards  into  more  perfect  harmony  with 
the  Scriptures,  and  with  the  faith  of  tlie  Presbyterian 
Church.  We  are  trying  to  be  patient  under  the  charge  of 
seeking  to  make  the  Confession  more  narrow  and  exclusive ; 
but  we  feel  its  injustice,  nevertheless. 

With  much  that  Dr.  Shedd  says  about  the  danger  of  our 
liberty  in  subscription  to  the  Standards  running  into  license, 
I  am  in  hearty  agreement.  Because  this  danger  is  clearly 
perceived,  and  because  some  of  our  opponents  advocate  a 
greater  liberty  of  subscription  as  the  practical  and  necessary 
alternative  of  revision,  therefore  we  are  the  more  earnest  in 
advocating  the  amendment  of  the  Confession.  We  see  the 
dangers  on  both  sides.  But  on  the  one  side  they  are  ob- 
vious and  easily  avoided,  because  they  are  foreseen  and 
provided  for  by  the  constitutional  process,  through  which 
any  revision  must  be  accomplished.  Every  proposed  amend- 
ment must  be  definitely  formulated,  openly  discussed,  and 
submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  whole  Church  as  represented  in 
the  Presbyteries.  On  the  other  side,  the  dangers  to  which 
Dr.  Shedd  refers,  are  an  indefinite  force,  working  m  secret, 
undermining  the  foundations,  and  revealing  themselves 
after  the  mischief  has  been  wrought.  How  far  these  dan- 
gers are  real  and  operative  at  the  present  time,  it  is  not 
competent  for  me  to  judge.  But  it  is  proj^er  to  add,  that 
I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  wide-spread  defection  in  our 
Church  from  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  our  Con- 
fession. The  Presbyterian  Church,  as  represented  in  our 
Assembly,  was  never  more  sound  in  the  faith,  nor  more  loyal 
in  adhering  to  her  Standards,  than  she  is  to-day.  I  do  not 
know  of  a  minister  or  elder  whom  there  is  reason  to  sus- 
pect of  dishonesty  in  professing  sincerely  to  receive  and 
adopt  the  Confession.  At  the  same  time,  and  in  perfect 
consistency  with  this  lo^^alty,  there  is  a  wide-spread  de- 
mand for  the  amendment  of  some  of   the  doctrinal  state- 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  99 

ments  of  our  creed.  This  demand  is  spontaneous,  and  can- 
not be  suppressed.  Our  missionary  zeal,  our  love  for,  and 
sympathy  with,  tlie  holy  catholic  Church,  of  which  God's 
Spirit  is  the  everlasting  endowment,  and  all  that  is  best  in 
the  spirit  of  our  times,  hes  back  of  it,  and  urges  it  forward. 
The  revision  will  come,  sooner  or  later,  as  sure  as  the  sun- 
rise. Now,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  time  to  make  it  with 
safety.  It  is  better  to  lift  the  constitutional  flood-gates  and 
let  the  water  run,  than  to  dam  it  up,  and  run  the  risk  of 
a  future  inundation. 

Henky  J.  Yan  Dyke. 


XIII. 
FURTHEK    REMARKS    BY  PROF.   SIIEDD. 

My  article  upon  revision,  to  mj  surprise,  has  elicited 
several  elaborate  and  able  replies  from  well-known  and  in- 
fluential Presbyterians,  that  call  for  some  answer.  I  do 
not  propose  to  notice  in  detail  all  the  arguments  of  my 
respected  friends.  Van  Dyke,  JSTelson,  and  Day,  who  have 
honored  my  views  with  their  objections.  I  should  have  to 
write  a  volume  in  order  to  this.  My  belief  is,  that  a 
sufficient  reply  to  all  of  their  fault-finding  with  the  Con- 
fession as  it  now  stands,  may  be  found  in  any  good  Calvin- 
istic  treatise  in  theology.  To  every  one  of  their  objections 
respecting  the  Westminster  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
decrees,  I  would  undertake  to  furnish  a  conclusive  answer 
from  the  "Systematic  Theology"  of  my  honored  prede- 
cessor. Dr.  H.  B.  Smith  (see  pp.  114-140).  Here  is  one 
difficulty  in  the  case.  The  discussion  of  the  abstruse  sub- 
ject of  decrees  has  to  be  carried  on  in  an  article  of  a  half 
column,  or  column,  of  a  newspaper.  An  objection  can  be 
stated  in  a  few  lines,  but  the  reply  cannot  be  so  given.  A 
misconception  can  be  presented  in  a  paragraph,  but  the 
correction  of  it  requires  a  column  or  a  broadside.  Leaving, 
then,  the  great  bulk  of  the  objections  urged  by  my  friends 
against  the  Westminster  Standards  to  be  answered  by  their 
systematic  expounders  and  defenders,  I  wish  to  fortify  my 
general  position  by  two  additional  remarks. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  my  contention  is,  that  the  Coufes- 
(100) 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  101 

sion  does  not  need  revision,  because  there  are  no  such  errors 
in  it  as  are  alleged  by  my  critics.  I  do  not  assert  that  the 
Confession  is  either  inspired  or  infalHble,  or  that  the 
Chiircli  has  no  right  to  revise  it.  But  I  do  assert  that  there 
is  no  such  error  in  the  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees 
as  is  affirmed  by  the  advocates  of  revision. 

With  much  that  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  says,  I  heartily  agree. 
If  all  the  advocates  of  revision  were  as  sound  theologians  as 
he  is,  there  would  be  less  hazard  in  the  attempt  to  revise. 
But  I  utterly  disagree  with  him  when  he  asserts  that  the 
Confession  needs  {a)  "  such  an  amendment  as  will  purge  it 
from  all  suspicion  of  teaching  that  God  creates  men  on  pur- 
pose to  damn  them,"  and  (h)  ''  sncli  an  addition  as  will 
make  it  clearly  declare  God's  infinite  love  and  -^dllingness 
for  the  salvation  of  all  men." 

Respecting  the  first  assertion,  I  deny  that  there  is  any 
phrase  or  clause  in  the  Confession  which,  when  fairly  in- 
terpreted by  its  context  and  other  parts  of  the  Standards, 
justifies  this  suspicion.  I  cannot,  of  course,  in  this  short 
article,  cite  and  examine  all  the  passages  in  proof.  I  can 
only  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  I  am  supported 
in  this  denial  by  all  the  expounders  and  defenders  of  the 
Westminster  Standards.  I  do  not  know  of  one  who  as- 
serts that  the  phraseology  concerning  decrees  even  sug- 
gests, much  less  warrants,  the  sentiment  that  ''  God  creates 
men  on  purpose  to  damn  them."  Will  Dr.  Van  Dyke  say 
that  his  revered  theological  instructor,  Dr.  Charles  Ilodge, 
would  have  conceded  for  an  instant  that  there  is  any  ground 
for  this  charo:e  in  tlie  Westminster  statement  concerning 
rc])robation  ?  And  does  he  not  believe  that  Charles  Ilodge 
correctly  understood  the  phraseology  of  the  Confession  ? 

Respecting  the  second  assertion,  that  there  is  no  "  clear 
declaration  "  in  the  Westminster  Standards  "  of  God's  in- 
finite love  and  willingness  that  all  men  should  be  saved,"  I 


102  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

liave  already  quoted  a  series  of  passages  from  them  wliicli 
Dr.  Yan  Dyke  says  "  were  not  intended,  as  their  connection 
shows,  to  teach  any  such  doctrine,  and  do  not  teach  it,"  but 
which  have  been  universally  regarded,  both  by  systematic 
theologians  and  practical  preachers,  as  plain  and  explicit 
proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  infinite  sufficiency  of  Christ's 
atonement,  the  infinite  compassion  of  God,  and  the  uni- 
versal offer  of  the  Gospel.  If  they  do  not  prove  this, 
what  do  they  prove?  They  certainly  do  not  teach  that 
God  feels  compassion  for  only  the  elect. 

It  seems  to  me  that  these  two  assertions  of  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke  contain  implications  that  would  carry  him  a  great 
deal  further  than  he  would  be  willing  to  go.  It  seems  to 
me  that  in  representing  the  Confession  to  be  positively  de- 
fective and  erroneous  on  two  such  very  important  points  as 
these,  not  to  speak  of  others  which  he  mentions,  he  is  giv- 
ing aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy.  He  is  virtually  telling 
the  opponents  of  Calvinism  that  they  are  correct  in  their 
aspersions  on  the  Westminster  symbol ;  in  their  assertion 
that  it  is  a  hard  and  repellant  system.  He  is  saying  to  the 
world,  that  for  two  centuries  the  Presbyterian  ministry,  in 
teaching  the  creed  which  they  have  subscribed,  have  been 
teaching,  by  implication  at  least,  that  God  creates  men  on 
purpose  to  damn  them,  and  have  not  clearly  taught  that 
God  feels  infinite  compassion  for  the  souls  of  men,  and 
sincerely  desires  their  salvation,  and  that  now  it  is  time 
to  stop  such  teaching.  The  Presbyterian  creed,  he  con- 
tends, has  been  wrong  on  these  two  points,  and  now  it 
should  be  set  right.  Will  the  Presbyteries  take  this  view 
of  the  subject  ?  Will  they  put  this  brand  of  reproach  on 
their  predecessors  ? 

I  have  the  same  difficulty  with  the  similar  allegation  of 
error  in  the  Confession  made  by  my  friend  Mr.  Day.  I 
suppose  that  I  do  him  no  injustice  in  classing  him  with  the 


CONFESSIONAL    REVISION.  l03 

Liberals,  and  of  this  class  be  says :  "  Tbe  issue  in  tbeir 
minds  is  tbis,  viz. :  tbe  Confession  of  Faitb  in  some  of  its 
statements  is  wrong.  Tbere  is  error  in  it,  and  tbe  error  is 
liHalP  He  tben  cbarges  npon  tbe  Confession  an  error 
wbieb,  witb  all  due  respect,  it  does  not  contain.  lie  states 
wbat  be  understands  tbe  doctrine  of  tbe  Confession  to  be, 
in  tbe  following  words :  "  According  to  tbis  doctrine,  if 
God's  decrees  to  everlasting  deatb  were  unconditioned  and 
witbout  reference  to  sin,  but  for  His  own  glory,  tben  if 
man  bad  not  fallen,  still  tbe  non-elect  would  bave  existed, 
and  would  bave  gone  to  tbeir  final  doom  of  everlasting 
deatb,  and  tbat  witbout  sin.  If  tbis  be  tbe  doctrine  of  tbe 
Confession,  I  feel  bound  to  say  tbat  I  do  not  believe  it,  but 
abbor  it."  He  tben  adds :  "  It  seems  to  me  tbat  sections 
2,  3,  4,  and  7,  of  Cbapter  III.  of  tbe  Confession  lead  to 
tbis  enormity  and  absurdity." 

K'ow  I  acknowledge  tbat  if  tbis  is  a  correct  statement  of 
wbat  tbe  Westminster  Confession  teacbes  concerning  God's 
decree  of  reprobation,  I  sbould  be  as  strongly  in  favor  of 
its  revision  as  any  one.  I  bave  been  a  professor  in  Union 
Seminary  twenty-six  years,  and  once  in  every  five  years  tbe 
Board  of  Directors,  wbo  tbemselves  subscribe  to  tbe  Con- 
fession, and  of  wbom  no  one  is  more  respected  and  influen- 
tial tban  Mr.  Day,  bave  summoned  me  before  tbem,  and  in 
accordance  witb  tbe  constitution,  bave  required  me  to  aflSrm, 
•'  in  tbe  presence  of  God  and  of  tbe  Directors  of  tbe  Semi- 
nary," tbat  I  "  solemnly  and  sincerely  receive  and  adopt 
tbe  Westminster  Confession  of  Faitb  as  containing  tbe 
system  of  doctrine  taugbt  in  tbe  Holy  Scriptures."  But 
bad  I  supposed  at  any  time  during  all  tbese  years,  tbat  I 
was  required  to  subscril)e  to  sucb  a  creed  as  Mr.  Day  repre- 
sents tbe  Westminster  to  be  upon  tbe  subject  of  decrees,  I 
>liould  bave  refused  subscription  and  tendered  my  resigna- 
tion.    But  tbe  Confession,  instead  of  teacbing  tbat  God's 


104  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  were  made  "  witliout 
reference  to  sin,"  and  that  "  if  man  had  not  fallen,  still  tlie 
non-elect  would  have  existed  and  would  have  gone  down 
to  their  final  doom  of  everlasting  death,  and  that  without 
sin,"  distinctly  postulates  and  supposes  the  existence  of  sin  ^ 
as  the  moral  state  and  condition  out  of  which  some  men 
are  elected,  and  in  which  some  men  are  left  and  reprobated. 
"  They  w^ho  are  elected,  heing  fallen  in  Adam,  are  re- 
deemed by  Christ.  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased, 
according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  His  own  will, 
whereby  He  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  lie 
jpleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  His  sovereign  power  over  His 
creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and 
wrath  for  their  sin^  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious  justice  " 
(Confession  III.  6,  7).  How  is  it  possible,  in  the  face  of 
these  statements,  to  say  that  the  Confession  teaches  that 
"  if  man  had  not  fallen,  still  the  non-elect  would  have  ex- 
isted, and  would  have  gone  down  to  everlasting  death,  and 
that  without  sin"  ?  The  Westminster  Confession,  like  the 
Dort  Canons,  is  infralapsarian.  In  the  order  of  nature,  it 
places  the  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  after  the 
apostasy  of  Adam  and  his  posterity.  It  presupposes  that 
all  men  are  guilty  and  lost  sinners  by  this  event,  having 
no  claim  upon  the  mercy  of  God.  Then  God  decides  to 
overcome  the  sin  of  the  major  part  of  them,  by  "the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and  the  minor  portion.  He  decides  to  leave  to  their  own 
free  will  and  self-determination  in  sin.  He  leaves  these 
sinners  severely  alone,  to  do  just  as  they  please  ;  to  "  eat  of 
the  fruit  of  their  own  ways,  and  be  filled  with  their  own 
devices."  The  former  decision  is  election  ;  the  latter  is  rep- 
robation. The  Confession  takes  the  ground  that  God  is 
not  under  obligation  to  save  any  sinner  whatever,  and  that 
He  consequently  has  the  right  of  a  sovereign  ruler  to  de- 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  105 

terinine  how  many  criminals  He  will  pardon,  and  how 
many  sinners  He  will  save.  If  this  is  not  the  way  in 
which  the  Confession  teaches  the  doctrines  of  election  and 
reprobation,  I  will  submit  to  correction. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  my  contention  is  that  there  has 
been  no  such  change  in  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  great 
majorit}^  of  Presbyterians,  as  is  asserted  by  some  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  revision,  and  assigned  as  the  reason  for  it.  Dr. 
Van  Dyke  is  not  one  of  this  class.  He  says  that  "  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  as  represented  in  our  Assembly,  was  never 
more  sound  in  the  faith,  nor  more  loyal  in  adhering  to  her 
Standards,  than  she  is  to-day."  This  is  also  my  belief.  But 
I  draw  a  different  conclusion  from  this  state  of  things  from 
his.  As  there  has  been  no  alteration  in  doctrinal  views,  I 
see  no  need  of  altering  the  creed.  If  there  really  is  the 
very  same  state  of  religious  opinion  in  the  Church  of  to- 
day, that  existed  in  1870,  1837,  and  1789,  there  will  be 
the  same  satisfaction  with  the  Confession  now  as  then.  No 
revision  was  demanded  at  those  epochs,  and  none  will  be 
demanded  now. 

But  a  very  common  and  a  very  passionate  argument  that 
I  have  seen  in  some  newspapers,  both  secular  and  religious, 
is  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  dissatisfied  with  the 
Confession ;  that  its  congregations  will  not  endure  the 
preaching  of  its  distinguishing  tenets,  and  that  its  ministers 
have  ceased  to  preach  them — in  brief,  that  the  progress  of 
civilization  and  physical  science  has  antiquated  the  doc- 
trines of  the  fathers,  and  that  all  creeds  must  be  revised, 
and  all  churches  adjusted  to  the  spirit  of  the  age.  This  is 
not  the  sentiment  or  the  argument  of  my  honored  friend, 
but  if  revision  is  entered  upon,  he  will  not  find  everybody 
so  moderate  as  himself.  He  thinks  that  the  true  way  when 
the  flood  rises,  is  to  "let  the  water  run  in  legitimate  chan- 
nels."    It  seems  to  me  that  the  l)etter  way  is  to  strengthen 


106  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

the  dam,  and  keep  it  strong.     To  cut  a  hole  in  the  dam,  or 
to  let  the  water  cut  it,  does  the  mischief. 

A  writer  in  The  Interior^  who  is  quoted  in  the  Evangel- 
ist^ strangely  says  that  my  "  argument  presupposes  that  the 
Church  is,  or  may  possibly  now  be,  (sic)  dissatisfied  with 
some  of  the  statements  of  the  Confession."  My  argument 
presupposes  the  exact  contrary.  I  oppose  revision  on  the 
ground  that  the  present  generation  of  Presbyterians  has 
the  very  same  religious  experience  that  their  fathers  had, 
and  finds  a  satisfactory  expression  of  it  in  the  very  same 
Confession  and  Catechisms.  If  I  supposed  that  the  great 
majority  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  dissatisfied  with 
their  Standards,  believing  that  they  teach  or  countenance 
errors  of  doctrine,  I  would  advise  revision ;  not  because  I 
think  that  there  are  errors,  and  that  the  revision  would  be 
an  improvement,  but  because  I  would  have  a  church  honest 
and  frank  in  saying  what  it  believes. 

And  here  the  whole  matter  hinges.  If  there  has  been  a 
change  in  doctrinal  sentiment  in  the  majority  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  the  Confession  will  be  changed,  and  ought 
to  be.  But  if  there  has  not  been,  it  will  not  be  changed, 
and  ought  not  to  be.  The  majority  must  rule.  As  Mr. 
Day  says,  "  We  are  trying  to  find  out,  by  asking  for  revis- 
ion, which  class  is  the  mountain,  and  which  is  Moham- 
med." For  this  reason,  the  coming  vote  of  the  Presbyte- 
ries will  prove  to  be  one  of  the  gravest  and  most  far-reach- 
ing in  its  consequences,  of  any  that  have  ever  been  passed 
in  the  history  of  the  Church.  It  will  determine  how  far,  or 
how  httle,  the  Church  has  drifted  from  the  old  anchorage. 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd. 


XIY. 

DE.  YAlSr  DYKE  IN  EEPLY  TO  PROF.  SHEDD. 

From  the  beginning  of  this  discussion  there  has  been,  on 
the  part  of  some  who  resist  revision,  an  ill-concealed  dis- 
paragement of  their  opponents.  It  grieves  me  to  see  my 
venerated  friend,  Dr.  Shedd,  falling  into  their  way  of  speak- 
ing. It  is  true,  indeed,  that  no  man  has  a  better  right  than 
he  to  speak  ex  cathedra^  and  sweeping  judgments  come 
with  a  better  grace  from  him  than  from  some  smaller  men. 
But  for  this  very  reason  they  are  the  more  to  be  regretted. 
The  following  sentence  occurs  in  the  introduction  to  his 
"  Further  Remarks  upon  Revision,"  published  in  the  Evan- 
gelist of  Oct.  10th  :  "  My  belief  is  that  a  sufiicient  reply  to 
all  their  fault-finding  with  the  Confession  as  it  now  stands, 
may  be  found  in  any  good  Calvinistic  treatise  in  theology." 
As  I  read  this  sentence,  my  heart  said,  That  is  not  like  Dr. 
Shedd  ;  it  is  the  position,  rather  than  the  man,  that  speaks  it. 
Is  it  like  the  broad-minded  scholar  and  courteous  gentleman, 
to  characterize  all  that  has  been  written  by  the  advocates 
of  revision  as  ''' fauU-finding  with  the  Confession,"  and 
to  intimate  that  the  writers  are  either  ignorant  of  any  good 
Calvinistic  treatise,  or  unable  to  comprehend  its  contents  i 
There  is  a  fair  collection  of  such  treatises  in  my  library. 
The  last  addition  to  it  is  Dr.  Shedd's  "  Dogmatic  Theology," 
which  I  have  read  and  pondered  from  beginning  to  end. 
But  so  far  from  curing,  it  has  increased  my  desire  for  the 
revision  of  the  Confession.     What  has  failed  to  cure  me  of 

(107) 


108  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

this  "  fault-finding,"  is  not  likely  to  prove  a  panacea  for  the 
other  advocates  of  revision.  Are  such  men  as  Dr.  Schaff 
and  Dr.  McCosh  and  Dr.  Herrick  Johnson  unacquainted 
with  the  contents  of  Calvinistic  treatises,  or  incapable  of 
understanding  their  bearing  upon  the  Confession  of  Faith  ? 
Are  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England,  and  the  United 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  and  the  great  majority  of 
the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  a  set  of  ignorant  fault-finders, 
for  whose  unrest  the  best  prescription  is  a  saturated  solution 
of  some  good  treatise  on  Calvinistic  theology?  The  advo- 
cates of  revision  might  retort  upon  their  judges,  by  sapng 
that  the  best  remedy  for  this  iron-clad  conservatism  of  hu- 
man and  uninspired  words,  would  be  to  lay  aside  all  treatises 
on  theology,  all  sectarian  names  and  traditional  prejudices, 
and  to  come  back  with  unbiassed  minds  to  the  study  of 
God's  "Word.  But  dogmatism  and  assumptions  of  superior- 
ity on  either  side,  are  out  of  place  in  such  a  discussion  as 
this. 

Let  us  all  dismount  from  the  high  horse,  and  meet  each 
other  on  equal  footing.  This  is  said  not  so  much  with  ref- 
erence to  Dr.  Shedd  as  to  some  smaller  men,  who  are  likely 
to  be  confirmed  in  their  assumptions  of  exclusive  orthodoxy 
by  his  unguarded  words,  the  full  force  of  which  I  am  per- 
suaded he  did  not  consider. 

The  "two  additional  remarks"  with  which  Dr.  Shedd 
"fortifies  his  general  position,"  really  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  the  discussion. 

I.  He  aflfirms  that  "  there  are  no  such  erro7'S "  in  the 
Confession  as  the  advocates  of  revision  allege.  We  afiSrm 
that  there  are  such  errors ;  and  so  we  stand  face  to  face. 
The  issue  thus  joined  is  to  be  tried  before  the  whole  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  whatever  may  be  the  formal  decision 
on  the  Assembly's  overture,  in  the  wholesome  discussion  it 
has  awakened,  the  revision  is  heing  made  in  the  hearts  amd 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  109 

minds  of  intelligent  readei's.     Such  readers  will  not  forget 
that  the  errors  we  desire  to  correct  are  not  in  the  system  of 
doctrine,  nor  in  any  doctrine  of  the  system,  but  simply  in 
statements  which  can  easily  be  amended  without  in  anywise 
affecting  the  integrity  of  the  Confession.     My  venerated 
friend  quotes  me  correctly  as  desiring  "such  an  amend- 
ment of  the  Confession  as  will  purge  it  from  all  suspicion 
of  teaching  that  God  creates  men  on  purpose  to  danni  them, 
and  such  an  addition  as  will  make  it  clearly  declare  God's 
inlinite  love  and  willingness  for  the  salvation  of  all  men." 
We  do  not  differ  in  this  discussion  upon  any  question  of 
theology.     It  is  delightful  to  observe  how  entirely  we  agree 
as  to  what  the  Confession  oicght  to  teach.     We  differ  only 
on  the  question  of  fact  as  to  what  the  Confession  does  teach. 
He  defiles,  and  I  affirm,  that  there  is  need  of  amendment 
upon  the  two  points  above  recited.     If  I  stood  alone  in  this 
position,  it  would  be  all  right  to  brush  me  aside,  and  set  me 
to  studying  some  good  Calvinistic  treatise.     But  inasmuch 
as  such  mmisters  as  Dr.  JVIcCosh,  Dr.  Scliaff,  Dr.  Kelson, 
and  Dr.  Johnson,  and  such  elders  as  Henry  Day,  and  a 
multitude  like  him  whom  I  could  name — and  the  whole 
Presbyterian  Church  of  England,  and  the  great  majority  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Scotland,  stand  in  the  same 
position  on  this  question  of  fact — would  it  not  be  charitable 
and  wise  for  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Shedd  to  say,  "  Very  well, 
brethren ;  I  think  the  Confession  ought  to  teach  what  you 
demand,  and  I  believe  that  it  does  so  teach ;  but  inasmuch 
as  you  cannot  see  with  my  eyes,  I  am  willing  that  these 
human  and  fallible  words  should  be  so  amended  as  to  make 
their  meaning  plainer  "  ?     How  does  Dr.  Shedd  prove  that 
there  is  no  need  to  purge  the  Confession  from  the  suspicion  of 
teaching  the  supralapsarian  dogma  that  God  creates  men  on 
purpose  to  damn  them?     I  submit  to  his  own  candid  judg- 
ment that  his  arirument  concedes  all  that  I  have  asserted. 


110  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

He  says:  ''I  deny  that  there  is  any  phrase  or  clause 
which,  when  fairly  interpreted  hy  its  context  and  other 
'parts  of  tJie  Standards^  justifies  this  suspicion  " — that  is 
to  say,  he  reads  into  the  third  section  of  the  third  chapter 
the  explanations  of  its  bald  statement  which  are  found  in 
other  parts  of  the  Standards.  The  advocates  of  revision 
propose  to  ptot  into  it,  as  a  permanent  addition  and  ex- 
planation, just  what  Dr.  Shedd  and  other  theologians  read 
into  it ;  so  that  the  unlearned  reader  may  not  misunder- 
stand it,  and  the  opponents  of  our  system  of  doctrine  may 
not  quote  it  to  our  disadvantage.  As  it  now  stands,  not 
merely  as  a  phrase  or  clause,  but  as  a  complete  section,  it 
teaches  that  God  foreordains  men  to  eternal  death  simply 
for  His  own  glory,  without  regard  to  their  character  or  de- 
serts. This  I  do  not  believe.  If  I  understand  him,  Dr. 
Shedd  does  not  believe  it.  It  is  horrible!  If  in  saying 
this  I  give  "  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy,"  let  it  be  so. 
Truth  is  better  than  party  victory.  No  man  who  believes 
in  Christ  is  my  enemy,  even  though  he  be  an  Arminian. 
He  is  my  friend,  and  I  desire  to  make  my  doctrine  as  plain 
and  as  agreeable  to  him  as  truth  will  allow.  I  agree  with 
all  Arminians,  and  with  all  Christians,  that  God  foreordains 
men  to  eternal  death /br  their  sins ;  that  it  would  not  be 
for  His  glory,  but  for  His  dishonor,  to  do  otherwise ;  and 
I  want  to  put  that  little  phrase, /(?r  their  sins,  into  the  sec- 
tion referred  to,  so  that  there  may  be  no  occasion  to  defend 
it  or  even  to  explain  it  by  other  parts  of  our  Standards. 

In  reply  to  the  question  whether  my  "  revered  theologi- 
cal instructor,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  would  have  conceded  for 
an  instant  that  there  is  any  ground  for  this  charge  in  the 
"Westmmster  statement  concerning  reprobation,"  I  answer 
in  Dr.  Hodge's  own  words :  "  The  symbols  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  while  they  clearly  imply  the  infralap- 
sarian  view,  were  yet  so  framed  as  to  avoid  ojfence  to  those 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  Ill 

xoJio  adopted  the  supralapsarian  theoi^y''''  ("Theology," 
vol.  ii.,  p.  319).  The  essence  of  the  supralapsarian  the- 
ory^ which  Dr.  Hodge  utterly  rejected  and  condemned,  is 
fairly  expressed  in  the  popular  phrase  that  God  creates 
men  on  purpose  to  damn  them.  The  third  section  of  the 
third  chapter  of  the  Confession  was  so  framed  as  not  to  of- 
fend those  who  held  the  supralapsarian  theory.  It  is  one 
of  the  sops  that  were  thrown  to  that  Cerberus.  Whether 
Dr.  Hodge,  if  he  were  now  living,  would  be  in  favor  of 
amending  that  section,  so  as  to  bring  it  more  into  conform- 
ity with  the  rest  of  the  Standards  and  with  his  own  teach- 
ing, it  is  not  competent  for  me  to  say.  But  if  he  were 
here,  and  opposed  to  the  revision,  with  all  my  love  and 
reverence  I  should  be  opposed  to  him,  just  as  I  am  opposed 
to  Dr.  Shedd.  This  question  is  not  to  be  settled  by  the 
authority  of  great  names.  The  fact  that  the  Confession 
has  been  accepted  and  defended  by  so  many  great  and 
good  men,  is  no  proof  that  it  cannot  be,  nor  that  it  ought 
not  to  be,  amended.  That  argument,  if  it  should  prevail, 
would  dam  up  the  stream  of  Scripture  interpretation  and 
cause  it  to  "  sicken  into  a  muddy  pool  of  conformity  and 
tradition." 

In  regard  to  the  other  amendment,  viz. :  "  Such  an  addi- 
tion to  the  Confession  as  will  make  it  clearly  declare  God's 
infinite  love  and  willingness  for  the  salvation  of  all  men," 
Dr.  Shedd  and  I  again  stand  face  to  face,  not  on  a  ques- 
tion of  theology,  but  of  fact.  I  deny  that  the  Confession 
contains  any  such  declaration  ;  he  affirms  that  it  does.  But 
I  cannot  see  it,  even  with  the  aid  of  his  elaborate  demun- 
strations.  If  I  were  alone  in  this,  I  would  willingly  con- 
clude that  the  failure  to  see  it  is  due  to  my  own  blindness. 
But  there  are  multitudes  in  the  same  position.  Would  it 
not  be  a  charitable  and  wise  concession  on  the  part  of  Dr. 
Shedd  and  those  who  agree  with  him  to  consent  to  the  in- 


112  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

sertion  into  the  Confession  of  one,  clear,  comprehensive, 
and  explicit  statement  of  what  he  says  is  already  there  in 
broken  lights  and  scattered  fragments  ? 

II.  In  the  second  remark  by  which  Dr.  Shedd  fortifies 
his  general  position,  he  affirms  that  "  there  has  been  no  such 
change  in  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  great  majority  of  Pres- 
byterians, as  is  asserted  by  some  of  the  advocates  of  revis- 
ion, and  assigned  as  a  reason  for  it."  He  adds :  "  Dr.  Yan 
Dyke  does  not  belong  to  this  class."  This  was  evidently 
designed  to  do  justice  to  my  position,  for  which  I  thank 
him.  But  whether  the  exception  thus  made  in  my  favor 
can  be  accepted,  will  depend  upon  the  meaning  of  doc- 
trinal views.  Dr.  Shedd  doubtless  means  that  there  has 
been  no  such  change  in  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  all  or 
any  of  the  doctrines  which  constitute  the  system  taught  in 
our  Confession,  as  to  require  or  warrant  a  change  in  any 
doctrine  essential  to  that  system.  In  this  I  entirely  agree. 
And  I  am  glad  that  Dr.  Shedd  agrees  with  me  in  the  belief 
that  our  Church  as  a  whole  was  never  more  loyal  to  the 
essential  doctrines  of  our  Confession  than  she  is  to-day.  I 
do  not  know  of  any  one  who  advocates  revision  upon  the 
ground  that  its  doctrines  ought  to  be  changed,  though  there 
are  some  who  oppose  revision,  because  they  desire  to  be  re- 
leased entirely  from  subscription  to  those  doctrines.  But 
"  doctrinal  views "  is  a  very  broad,  not  to  say  ambiguous, 
term.  It  includes  methods  of  interpreting  the  Confession, 
tlieories  outside  of  Confessional  limits,  and  opinions  con- 
cerning the  adequacy  and  correctness  of  certain  doctrinal 
statements  in  the  Confession  itself.  In  these  respects  there 
has  been  a  very  great  change  in  the  doctrinal  views  of  the 
great  majority  of  Presbyterians, — such  a  change  as  now 
warrants,  and  will  ultimately  compel,  a  revision  of  the 
Confession. 

(1).  The  supralapsarian  theory,  whose  advocates  the  West- 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  1113 

minster  Confession  was  so  framed  as  not  to  offend,  the  same 
theory  which  went  to  seed  in  the  Emmonsisni  and  Ilopkins- 
ianism  of  New  England — the  theory  whose  essence  is  that 
God  creates  men  in  order  to  damn  them  for  His  glory,  and 
whose  legitimate  conclnsion  is  that  we  mnst  be  willing  to 
he  damned  before  we  can  be  saved — has  passed  away  from 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  where  it  never  had  mnch  enter- 
tainment, and,  thank  God,  it  is  no  longer  even  a  ghost  to 
frighten  children.  As  this  theory  is  dead,  whatever  was 
put  into  our  Confession  to  conciliate  its  advocates,  ought  to 
be  carried  out  and  buried  with  it. 

(2).  There  has  been  a  change  amounting  to  a  revolution 
in  the  views  of  Calvinists,  and  especially  of  Presbyterians, 
in  regard  to  the  salvation  of  dying  infants-  I  will  not  re- 
peat the  history  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  so  admirably 
set  forth  by  Dr.  Prentiss  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  and 
by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  recent  book  called  ^'  Whither ";  nor 
restate  the  argument  of  Dr.  Hodge  and  others  for  the  sal- 
vation of  all  dying  infants  ;  nor  review  the  explanations  by 
which  it  is  attempted  to  reconcile  the  phrase,  "elect  in- 
fants," with  the  present  faith  of  the  Church.  To  illustrate 
the  extent  of  the  change  in  doctrinal  views  at  this  point,  I 
will  quote  two  passages.  The  first  is  from  Dr.  Twisse,  the 
moderator  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  in  a  book  entitled 
"  The  Kiches  of  God's  Love  unto  the  Vessels  of  Mercy." 
He  says :  "  If  many  thousands,  even  all  the  infants  of 
Turks  and  Saracens,  dying  in  original  sin,  are  tormented 
by  Him  (God)  in  Hell  fire,  is  He  to  be  counted  the  father 
of  cruelties  for  that  ? "  [Quoted  by  Dr.  Briggs  in 
"Whither,"  p.  125.  There  is  a  more  horrible  passage 
quoted  on  page  124,  from  Samuel  Eutherford,  one  of  the 
Scotch  Commissioners  in  the  Westminster  Assembly.]  The 
other  passage  to  which  we  gladly  turn  is  from  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge :  "  In  the  history  of  the  world,  since  Adam,  all  the 


114  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

souls  of  those  that  have  died  before  birth  or  between  birth 
and  moral  agencj  have  been  redeemed  in  Christ.  Through 
all  the  ages, — from  Japan,  from  China,  from  India,  from 
Africa,  from  the  islands  of  the  sea, — multitudes,  flocking 
like  birds,  have  gone  to  heaven  of  this  great  company  of 
redeemed  infants  of  the  Church  of  God."  The  change  in- 
dicated bj  these  two  extracts  is  immense.  If  there  were 
no  other,  it  would  warrant  and  ultimately  compel  a  revision 
of  the  Confession.  Dr.  Shedd  and  others  think  there  is 
not  going  to  be  much  of  a  shower,  but  we  tell  him  the 
windows  of  heaven  are  opened.  He  proposes  to  "  strengthen 
the  dam  "  by  insisting  that  it  is  all  right,  and  letting  it  se- 
verely alone.  We  pi-opose  to  strengthen  it,  not  as  he  says, 
"  by  cutting  a  hole,"  but  by  lifting  the  constitutional  flood- 
gates to  take  off  the  pressure,  while  we  take  out  some  rot- 
ten planks  like  "  elect  infants  "  and  put  in  some  sound  Gos- 
pel timber  in  the  form  of  a  declaration  of  God's  infinite 
love  for  all  men.  If  our  opponents  are  afraid  that  this  will 
not  be  well  done,  the  best  course  is  for  them  to  join  the 
movement  and  help  us  to  keep  it  within  conservative 
limits 

Henet  J.  Van  Dyke. 


XV. 

A  NOTE  FROM  DR.  SIIEDD. 

To  THE  Editor  of  the  JSTew  York  Evangelist: 

Will  you  grant  me  the  space  to  disclaim  the  interpreta- 
tion which  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  puts  upon  my  use  of  the  phrase 
"fault-finding  with  the  Confession."  I  employed  it  in  nO 
discourteous  sense,  but  to  express  what  seems  to  me  the 
simple  fact  in  the  case.  Dr.  Van  Dyke  contends  that  the 
Confession  does  not  proclaim  the  love  of  God  towards  all 
men.  This,  if  true,  is  a  fault  in  it.  He  contends  that  it 
teaches  by  implication  that  God  creates  some  men  in  order 
to  damn  them.     This,  if  true,  is  a  fault. 

I  do  not  think  that  my  phraseology  warrants  his  assertion 
that  I  "  intimate  "  that  "  he  is  ignorant  of  any  good  Calvin- 
istic  treatise,  or  unable  to  comprehend  its  contents."  My 
repeated  expressions  of  respect  for  his  theological  learning 
and  orthodoxy,  should  have  precluded  such  a  charge  as  this. 
x\ll  I  wish  to  say,  and  all  that  I  do  say,  is  that  these  alleged 
faults  in  the  Confession  are  noticed  by  systematic  expounders 
of  it,  who  deny  that  they  are  there,  and  give  their  proof. 
I  mentioned  this  fact,  merely  to  indicate  what  is  the  com- 
mon understanding  of  the  Confession  by  this  class  of  per- 
sons, not  quoting  them  at  all  as  having  ex  cathedra  author- 
ity in  the  matter.  I  expressly  say  that  my  limits  forbid  the 
examination  of  passages  in  proof,  and  hence  I  adopt  this 
short  method  of  citing  the  theologians  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Confession,  as  a  lawyer  would  cite  the  ex- 
positions of  jurists  like  Kent  and  Story,  as  to  the  meaning 
uf  the  Constitution. 

Yours  truly,  W.  G.  T.  Siiedd. 

(115) 


XYI. 
GOD'S  INFIlSriTE  LOYE  TO  MEK 

God's  clearest  and  most  permanent  revelation  of  Him- 
self is  in  the  person  and  life  of  Jesus  Christ,  God  of  God, 
Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God.  The  incarnate 
Word  is  infinitely  above  the  written  Word,  which  derives 
its  chief  value  from  the  fact  that  it  testifies  of  Him.  And 
therefore  the  portions  of  Scripture  which  record  Christ's 
life  and  teaching  are  pre-eminently  called  the  Gospels. 

In  the  teaching  of  Christ  two  truths  stand  side  by  side 
as  clear  as  the  sun ;  and  whether  we  can  demonstrate  their 
consistency  or  not  we  are  bound  to  believe,  to  defend,  and 
to  proclaim  both  of  them. 

The  first  is  God's  sovereignty  in  the  bestowal  of  grace 
upon  sinners.  He  does  what  He  pleases  with  His  own. 
"  I  thank  Thee,  O  Father,  God  of  heaven  and  earth,  be- 
cause Thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  w^se  and  prudent 
and  revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even  so.  Father,  for  so  it 
seemed  good  in  Thy  sight."  Quotations  could  easily  be 
multiplied  on  this  point,  but  this  one  is  enough. 

The  second  truth,  revealed  not  only  in  the  word  of  Christ, 
but  in  actions  speaking  louder  than  words,  is  Godh  love  for 
all  men^  and  His  compassionate  regard  even  for  those  who 
perish  in  their  sins.  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father,"  is  one  of  those  sayings  of  His  which  penetrate  the 
depths  of  God's  unsearchable  judgment,  and  without  ex- 
plaining them  to  our  comprehension  nevertheless  leave 
them  luminous  forever.  What  Christ  is,  God  is ;  what 
(116) 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  117 

Christ  does,  God  does;  what  Christ  says,  God  says.  If 
there  is  anything  in  our  theology  which  contravenes  this 
foundation  truth  it  must  be  wrong, 

Now  see  Christ  as  He  laments  and  weeps  over  reprobate 
Jerusalem.  They  whose  house  was  left  unto  them  desolate, 
and  from  whose  eyes  the  things  that  belonged  to  their  peace 
were  hidden,  were  certainly  non-elect.  They  were  not 
chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  nor 
predestinated  to  obtain  salvation  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  And  yet  the  only  Redeemer  of  God's  elect  laments 
and  weeps  over  them.  It  was  not  merely  the  man  Jesus, 
but  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  who  did  and  said  these  things. 
We  see  the  Father  in  Him  standing  on  Mount  Olivet  and 
saying,  "  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  you  and  ye  loould  not.''''  Examples  might  be 
multiplied  on  this  point,  but  this  one  will  suffice. 

These  two  truths,  God's  sovereignty  in  the  bestowal  of 
His  grace,  and  His  infinite  love  for  all  men^  are  the  hinges 
and  turning-points  of  all  Christian  theology.  The  anti- 
Calvinist  denies  the  first.  The  /i^z/'^r-Calvinist  or  supra- 
lapsarian  denies  the  second,  holding  that  God  creates  some 
men  on  purpose  to  damn  them,  for  His  glory.  The  true 
Calvinist  believes  both  and  insists  that  they  are  consistent. 
It  is  upon  the  union  of  these  two  truths  that  the  strength 
and  beauty  of  our  theology  depends.  The  ultimate  and 
dominant  reason  why  I  advocate  the  revision  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  is  that  it  does  not  state  these  two  truths 
in  their  relations  and  harmony.  It  is  full  of  God's  sover- 
eignty in  the  choice  of  the  elect,  and  overflows  with  the 
declaration  of  His  special  love  for  them,  all  of  which  I 
devoutly  believe.  But  it  contains  no  summary  of  those 
Scriptures,  and  of  those  acts  and  words  of  God  in  Christ, 
which  explicitly  teach  that  He  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men, 
and  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 


118  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

come  to  repentance.  In  former  articles  I  have  stated  tlie 
proposition  thus:  Our  Confessic/ii  does  not  cwitain  one 
declaration  of  God^s  infinite  love  to  men^  nor  one  declaror 
tion  that  Chrisfs  sacrifice  for  sin  is  sufficient  for  all^ 
ada;pted  to  all^  and  offered  to  all.  This  statement  was 
made  not  rashlj,  but  advisedly,  reverently,  and  in  the  fear 
of  God.  Will  the  good  brethren  who  are  so  much  offended 
by  it  have  the  patience  to  notice  the  preciseness  of  its  word- 
ing? It  does  not  say  that  the  Confession  denies,  or  even 
that  it  contains  no  implication  of  God's  infinite  love  to  all 
men,  but  that  the  Confession  contains  no  declaration  of 
this  great  truth,  nor  of  the  sufficiency,  adaptation,  and  uni- 
versal offer  of  the  Gospel  salvation,  in  which  God's  infinite 
love  to  men  is  embodied.  Some  have  garbled  this  state- 
ment, and  held  up  parts  of  it  to  scorn.  Let  them  pass. 
Others,  among  our  ablest  theologians,  have  fairly  met  and 
attempted  to  disprove  it  by  quotations  from  the  Confession 
itself.  But  they  have  not  succeeded.  The  most  they  claim 
to  have  shown  is  that  there  are  statements  in  the  Confession 
which  imiily  what  I  maintain  it  does  not  declare. 

It  is  useless  to  go  over  the  ground  again.  Let  our  min- 
isters and  intelligent  laymen  read  the  Confession  for  them- 
selves and  judge  between  us.  For  however  valuable  the 
testimony  of  "  Experts "  may  be — and  on  this  point  I  do 
not  dispute  what  The  Presbyterian  has  so  well  said, — the 
uhimate  decision  of  the  question  of  Revision  rests  with  the 
whole  Church  represented  in  her  Presbyteries.  The  Con- 
fession is  the  symbol  and  standard  of  the  whole  Church,  a 
professed  statement  of  wliat  Presbyterians  believe. 

Even  if  the  doctrine  of  God's  infinite  love  for  all 
men  can  be  logically  deduced  from  its  statements  by  our 
theological  experts,  that  is  very  far  from  being  sufficient 
A  truth  so  vital  to  the  common  faith  of  Christendom,  and 
so  intimately  related  to  the  missionary  zeal  by  which  the 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  119 

Church  of  to-day  is  eminently  distinguished  from  what  she 
was  in  the  time  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  for  two 
centuries  after,  ought  to  stand  out  upon  her  banner  with 
the  same  clearness  that  it  has  in  the  inspired  gospels.  It  is 
no  answer  to  our  objection  to  observe  that  our  missionary 
zeal  has  sprung  up  and  flourished  in  spite  of  this  alleged 
defect  in  our  Standards ;  for  it  is  quite  in  accordance  with 
the  economy  of  God's  providence  and  grace  that  the  life 
and  experience  of  Christians  should  precede  and  mould  the 
formuhition  of  their  Creed.  This  principle  is  illustrated  in 
the  whole  history  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  this  country  may  resist,  but  she  cannot  ulti- 
mately prevent  the  application  of  this  principle. 

For  these  reasons  I  have  ventured,  in  response  to  the  call 
of  the  General  Assembly,  to  suggest  that  we  amend  the 
third  chapter  of  our  Confession  by  inserting  some  such 
statement  as  the  following :  "  God's  eternal  decree  hinder- 
eth  no  one  from  accepting  Christ  as  He  is  offered  to  all  men 
for  salvation  in  the  Gospel ;  nor  ought  it  to  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  contradict  the  declarations  of  Scripture  that 
Christ  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world, 
and  that  God  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance." 

If  any  man  objects  to  the  wording  of  this  amendment, 
let  him  frame  a  better  one  and  I  will  accept  it.  But  if 
any  one  says,  as  the  Arminians  do,  that  the  truth  it  is  in- 
tended to  embody  is  inconsistent  with  our  system  of  doc- 
trine, or  that  its  adoption  would  mar  the  strength  and 
beauty  of  our  Confession,  I  differ  with  him  absolutely  and 
uncompromisingly,  because  I  am  a  Calvinist. 

Henry  J.  Van  Dyke. 


XYII. 

GOD'S  mrmiTE  loye  to  men  and  the 

WESTMINSTEE  CONFESSION. 

By  all  means  the  most  plausible  argument  in  favor  of  a 
revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession  turns  on  the  al- 
leged absence  from  that  document  of  a  due  declaration 
of  the  love  of  God  to  mankind.  It  can  surprise  no  one, 
therefore,  that  so  able  a  reasoner  as  Dr.  Van  Djke  speaks 
(in  TJie  Presbyterian  for  October  5th)  of  the  failure  of 
the  Confession,  in  his  view,  to  state  the  two  truths  of  the 
sovereignty  of  God  and  His  "  infinite  love  for  all  men," 
in  their  relation  and  harmony,  as  "the  ultimate  and  domi- 
nant reason"  why  he  advocates  its  revision.  I  believe 
that  this  alleged  failure  cannot  be  more  strongly  or  more 
convincingly  argued  than  it  has  been  by  Dr.  Van  Dyke  in 
the  paper  referred  to.  No  reader  of  it  will  fail  to  feel  that 
if  this  be  the  state  of  the  case,  so  serious  a  lack  in  our 
Confessional  statement  ought  to  be  remedied.  Only,  when 
we  go  back  to  the  Confession  itself  we  discover  that  the 
reading  of  it  does  not  leave  the  same  impression  upon  the 
mind  that  was  left  by  the  reading  of  Dr.  Van  Dyke's 
paper.  The  Confession  begins  with  a  most  moving  de- 
scription of  God's  character  as  the  God  of  love  (ii.  1),  and 
traces  His  loving  dealings  with  the  children  of  men,  on 
from  plan  to  act,  and  from  act  to  act,  until  He  brings  those 
whom  His  love  sought  out  into  the  fruition  of  glory ;  and 
the  reader  feels  the  document  to  be  suffused  from  end  to 
(120) 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  121 

end  with  the  glow  of  infinite  compassion.  He  cannot  rise 
from  reading  it  without  a  deep  sense  that  here  there  is  no 
lack  of  insistence  upon  the  fundamental  Christian  doctrine 
that  "  God  is  love." 

Now,  how^  are  we  to  account  for  the  different  impres- 
sions made  on  the  mind  by  Dr.  Van  Dyke's  account  of 
the  Confession  and  by  the  Confession  itself?  Possibly  the 
following  considerations  will  help  us  to  understand  it : 

1.  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  appears  to  set  God's  sovereignty  and 
His  love  unduly  over  against  one  another.  In  the  view 
of  the  Confession,  as  of  the  New  Testament,  (as,  for  ex- 
ample, in  Ephesians,  i.  5,  where  predestination  is  ac- 
cording to  the  </^(9<^-pleasure  of  His  will,)  God's  electing 
grace  is  the  expression  of  His  infinite  love  for  men.  So 
sharply  does  Dr.  Yan  Dyke  oppose  God's  sovereignty  and 
God's  love  for  all  men,  however,  as  truths  whose  consist- 
ency we  may  find  it  hard  to  demonstrate,  that  the  reader 
is  apt  to  understand  him  as  thinking  of  electing  grace  as 
a  limitation  of  God's  love.  Thus  the  highest  exercise  of 
love  plays  the  part,  in  his  paper,  of  clouding  the  mani- 
festation of  infinite  love.  This  unfortunate  result  is 
partly  due  to  what  seems  an  undue  emphasis  upon  the 
word  "all"  in  the  phrase,  "God's  infinite  love  for  all 
men,"  which  is  so  used  as  inevitably  to  suggest  the  idea  of 
equal  and  undiscriminating  love  for  each  and  every  man, 
distributively.  The  complaint  that  the  Confession  does 
not  give  its  proper  place  to  the  "'  love  of  God  for  all  men  " 
thus  almost  passes  into  a  complaint  that  in  the  Confessional 
scheme  God's  infinite  love  for  the  non-elect  is  not  made  a 
co-hinge  with  His  sovereignty  in  the  bestowal  of  His  grace. 

When  we  escape  from  these  suggestions,  however,  and 
ask  seriously  what  place  should  be  given  to  the  truth  of 
God's  infinite  love  for  men  indiscriminately,  as  distin- 
(jnished  from  His  special  love  to  His  chosen  ones,  among 


122  CONFESSIONAL  REVISION. 

the  architectonic  principles  of  a  Confession,  it  would  seem 
that  we  are  obliged  to  assign  it  a  position  which,  though 
fundamenta],  jet  would  not  be  prominent  in  such  a  sense 
as  implies  frequent  or  pervasive  assertion.  A  Confession 
which  conhned  itself  to  declaring  God's  indiscriminate 
"  love  for  all  men,"  and  its  fruits  in  blessings  equally  uni- 
versally given,  would  be  lacking  in  all  the  most  precious 
doctrines  of  the  Scriptures.  A  Confession  which  followed 
with  equal  minuteness  and  fullness  the  dealings  of  God 
with  the  non-elect  and  the  elect,  would  be  overburdened 
with  the  darker  shadows  of  man's  sin  and  God's  holy 
justice.  Is  not  the  Westminster  Confession's  way  the  true 
one  ? — to  lay  the  foundations  firm  in  a  full  description  of 
God  as  the  God  of  love  (ii.  1),  and  then  give  its  strength 
to  the  exhibition  of  this  love  in  its  highest  manifestations 
from  the  eternal  election  ''  in  the  beloved  "  to  the  recep- 
tion into  glory,  with  only  such  incidental  mention  here 
and  there  of  the  non-elect  as  the  occasion  demanded  ? 
In  one  word,  ought  we  to  demand  that  a  Confession 
should  be  framed  as  if  it  were  a  proclamation  of  God's 
love  to  sinners?  That  is  the  function  of  a  sermon.  A 
Confession,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  Christians'  expression 
of  what  God  has  done  for  them,  and  as  such  it  ought  not 
to  be  expected  to  contain  more  than  clear  recognition  of 
God's  love  for  all  men,  but  should  lay  the  stress  rather  on 
the  exhibition  of  that  love  to  His  children. 

2.  And  this  leads  me  to  the  second  criticism  I  wish  to 
make  on  Dr.  Yan  Dyke's  paper.  And  that  is,  that  he 
appears  to  me  to  make  an  unreasonable  demand  in  the 
amount  and  kind  of  recognition  he  asks  for  God's  uni- 
versal love,  in  the  Confession.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  its 
recognition  by  clear  or  frequent  '^  implication  "/  he  demands 
explicit  "  declaration.'^^  I  understand  him  to  allow  that  it  is 
"  implied,"  as,  indeed,  others  who  agree  with  hinj  in  his  gen- 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  123 

eral  contention  (or,  e.  (j.^  Dr.  Candlish)  certainly  admit. 
But  he  insists  that  nothing  will  be  satisfactory  except  an 
explicit  "  declaration  "  of  "  God's  infinite  love  to  men." 
Now,  the  unreasonableness  of  this  demand  is  easily  made 
evident  by  the  simple  remark  that  in  it  Dr.  Van  Dyke 
asks  of  the  Confession  more  than  can  easily  be  found  on 
the  surface  of  the  New  Testament.  The  New  TestaniLiit 
does  not  seem  to  ^'  contain  one  explicit  declaration  "  of  God's 
infinite  "  love  to  all  men."  I  would  not  like  to  be  misun- 
derstood here.  It  is  not  I  who  throw  doubt  on  this  precious 
truth  being  a  doctrine — or  say  rather,  the  doctrine — of  the 
New  Testament.  But,  as  it  happens,  it  is  a  doctrine 
taught  by  clear  "  implication"  in  other  doctrinal  statements 
rather  than  by  precise  "  declarations  "  of  itself.  The  New 
Testament  declares  that  ''  God  is  love,"  and  so  does  the 
Confession  say  that  He  is  "  most  loving,  gracious,  merciful, 
long-suffering,  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  forgiving 
iniquity,  transgression,  and  sin  ;  the  rewarder  of  them  that 
diligently  seek  Hin}."  The  New  Testament,  in  one  unique 
passage,  says  that  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  lie  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son";  but  to  say  that  He  loved  ''the 
world  "  collectively  is  only  "  implicatively  "  to  say  that  He 
loved  ''  all  men  "  distributively  ;  and,  besides  this  one  pas- 
sage, no  other  brings  the  words  "  loved  "  and  "  mankind  " 
into  immediate  conjunction.  Well,  the  gist  of  what  I  am 
urging  is  that  if  we  can  be  satisfied  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment when  it  teaches  this  fundamental  doctrine  only  by 
necessary  "  implication,"  we  need  not  be  so  stringent  in  in- 
sisting that  a  like  mode  of  teaching  it — by  "  implication  " 
rather  than  by  explicit  "  declaration" — is  intolerable  in  the 
Confession. 

That  the  Confession  does  "  imply  "  God's  infinite  love  to 
man  is  evident,  it  seems  to  me,  without  a  quotation  of 
passages.     This  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Confession 


124  CONFESSIONAL   REVISION. 

as  well  as  of  the  New  Testament ;  all  its  doctrine  is  but 
an  orderly  development  of  God's  love  to  man — election 
itself  and  all  its  consequents  being,  as  I  have  said,  not  the 
limitation,  but  the  expression  of  His  love  for  men.  But 
it  is  also  capable  of  being  made  evident  by  passages.  We 
have  just  quoted  the  rich  description  of  God's  loving 
nature  from  ii.  1,  and  that  God  "  is  good  and  doeth  good 
unto  all "  (xxi.  1)  is  asserted  in  detail  on  every  convenient 
occasion.  Kor  are  there  lacking  passages  which  assert  the 
free  offer  of  salvation  in  Christ  and  the  responsibility  of 
man  in  accepting  or  rejecting  Him.  He  is  the  "  mediator 
between  God  and  man"  (viii.  1),  and  God  has  ^^ freely 
offered  tmto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  re- 
quiring of -them  faith  in  Him  that  they  may  be  saved  " 
(vii.  3) — a  passage  the  universality  of  which  is  not  taken 
away,  but  rather  established,  by  the  fact  that  it  proceeds 
to  say  that  God  gives  more  than  this  offer  to  those  who 
are  ordained  to  life.  I  submit  that  these  clear  ^'  impli- 
cations"— if  any  one  chooses  to  call  them  so — of  the 
universal  side  of  the  Gospel  are  as  much  as  should  be 
asked  for  in  a  Confession,  and  that  any  Confession 
ought,  as  our  Confession  does,  to  give  the  stress  and  main 
portion  of  its  teaching  to  the  great  things  that  God  does 
for  man  in  the  actual  and  complete  saving  of  multitudes 
from  penalty  and  sin,  rather  than  to  the  (comparatively) 
little  things  He  does  in  proclaiming  the  Gospel  freely  to 
all.  All  that  ought  to  be  asked  is  that  this  latter  import- 
ant side  of  truth  should  be  fully  recognized. 

3.  Lastly,  I  am  constrained  to  say  that  the  amending 
section  which  Di*.  Yan  Dyke  proposes  for  insertion  into 
the  Confession,  in  order  to  supply  its  assumed  defect  in 
this  matter,  seems  to  me  entirely  unnecessary,  because  all 
that  it  asserts  is  already  provided  for  in  the  Confession  as 
it  stands.     This  section  is  divided  into  two  clauses.     The 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  125 

first  declares:  ''God's  eternal  decree  hindereth  no  one 
from  accepting  Christ  as  lie  is  offered  to  all  men  for  sal- 
vation in  the  Gospel."  But  what  possible  need  can  there 
be  for  this  assertion  after  the  Confession  has  declared  that 
bj  the  decree  no  "  violence  is  ofiered  to  the  will  by  the 
creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second 
causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established  "  ?  All  that  is 
proposed  finds  itself  already  asserted  here.  The  second 
clause  runs  :  "  Nor  ought  it  to  be  so  construed  as  to  contra- 
dict the  declaration  of  Scripture  that  Christ  is  the  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  God 
is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance."  But  how  can  it  be  so  construed 
when  the  long-suffering  God,  who  is  "the  rewarder  of 
them  that  diligently  seek  Him,"  has  "freely  offered  unto 
sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of 
them  faith  in  Him  that  they  may  be  saved  "  ?  The  Con- 
fession is  probably  long  enough  already,  and  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  add  to  it  merely  in  order  to  say  over  again, 
in  other  words,  what  it  already  provides  for. 

Benjamin  B.  Wabfield. 


XYIII. 

THE  CONFESSION  AND  GOD'S  INFINITE  LOYE 

TO  MEN. 

I  AM  reluctant  to  utter  another  word  on  Hevision  lest 
hearers  should  be  wearied  by  my  much  speaking,  and  lest 
in  my  honest  zeal  for  the  cause  I  should  appear  to  be  hostile 
to  those  with  whom  I  am  in  substantial  agreement.  May 
God  give  us  all  persevering  grace  to  speak  the  truth  in  love, 
and  to  demonstrate  that  the  odium  iheologicum  is  a  thing 
of  the  past.  It  is  not  necessary,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
but  it  may  not  be  amiss  for  the  sake  of  others,  to  say  that 
the  personal  relations  between  Dr.  Warfield  and  myself  are 
of  the  most  friendly  kind,  and  that  next  to  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  Princeton  Seminary,  by  tender 
memories  and  still  more  precious  hopes,  holds  the  largest 
place  in  my  love  and  loyalty.  I  honestly  think,  and  use 
the  boldness  of  a  friend  to  say,  that  the  recent  announce- 
ment in  the  secular  press  to  the  effect  that  "  Princeton 
stands  firm  "  in  opposition  to  all  Revision,  is  regretted  by 
many  of  her  most  devoted  friends.  For  "  Princeton  "  rep- 
resents something  more  than  the  opniions  of  the  honored 
men  who  now  fill  her  professorial  chairs  as  worthy  suc- 
cessors of  those  who  have  finished  their  course.  She  has  a 
future  as  well  as  a  past  to  conserve,  and  nothing  can  more 
effectually  paralyze  her  power  for  good  than  the  public  im- 
pression that  her  future  is  to  be  only  a  stereotyped  repeti- 
tion of  the  past.  The  Eevision  against  which  it  is  pro- 
(136) 


CONFESSIONAL  REVISION.  127 

claimed  that  she  stands  firm^  will  come ;  it  has  come  al- 
ready ill  the  Church  at  large,  and  iu  the  hearts  of  muiiy  of 
her  own  most  cherished  alumni.  Wise  clmrchmansliip 
teaches  that  she  should  seek  to  guide  rather  than  to  arrest 
the  inevitable  movement. 

These  convictions  are  greatly  confirmed  and  strength- 
ened by  both  the  admissions  and  the  denials  of  Dr.  War- 
field's  article  in  The  Presbyterian  of  November  2d.  He 
admits  that  the  Confession  does  not  contain  one  explicit 
declaration  of  the  infinite  love  of  God  to  men.  This  is  all 
I  have  contended  for.  I  have,  indeed,  intimated,  and 
think  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  the  implica- 
tions for  which  he  contends  are  "far-fetched  and  little 
worth."  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  insist  upon  this.  It  is 
enough  to  justify  and  urge  on  the  movement  for  Kevision, 
that  the  ablest  defenders  of  the  Confession,  as  it  is,  admit 
that  it  does  not  contain  one  explicit  declaration  of  the  in- 
finite love  of  God  for  men  as  men,  and  that  all  its  positive 
declarations  are  confined  to  the  expression  of  God's  love  for 
the  elect.  My  ultimate  and  dominant  reason  for  advocat- 
ing Revision  is  confirmed  as  a  fact  by  my  candid  opponent. 
H(3  denies  only  the  inferences  I  draw  from  this  fact.  Let 
us  look  at  some  of  his  denials. 

1.  He  asks  "  in  one  word,  ought  we  to  demand  tliat  a 
Confession  should  be  framed  as  if  it  were  a  proclamation  of 
God's  love  to  sinners  ? "  IS'ow,  no  advocate  of  Revision 
has  contended  that  a  Confession  ought  to  l)e  merely  a  proc- 
lamation of  God's  love  to  sinners,  and  therefore,  if  Dr. 
Warfield's  question  has  any  pertinence  to  this  discussion  it 
is  intended  to  affirm  that  our  Confession  oufjld  not  to  con- 
tain any  such  jyroclamation.  In  other  words,  he  admits 
that  the  Confession  contains  no  such  declaration  as  we  think 
it  ought  to  contain,  but  insists  that,  so  far  from  1)oing  a  de- 
fect, this  omission  is  one  of  its  crowning  excellences.     He 


128  CONFESSIONAL  EEVISION. 

adds,  "  thai  (the  proclamation  of  God's  love  to  sinners)  is 
tlie  function  of  a  sermon."  I  will  not  push  these  premises 
to  their  logical  conclusion,  nor  charge  upon  my  brother  the 
inference,  from  which  I  am  sure  he  would  shrink,  that 
there  ought  to  be  one  system  of  doctrine  for  the  minister's 
study  and  another  for  his  pulpit.  It  will  be  enough  to  say 
that  this  is  just  the  difficulty  with  which  some  of  our  Pres- 
byterian pastors  have  labored  and  groaned  in  secret,  that 
our  Confession  does  not  set  forth  the  Gospel  as  our  loyalty 
to  Christ  and  our  love  for  the  souls  of  men  compel  us  to 
preach  it,  and  that  too  much  of  our  time  and  strength  is 
consumed  in  defending  our  Creed  against  objections  which 
could  easily  be  removed  by  such  a  revision  as  we  advocate. 
We  do  not  desire  a  Confession  which  would  "  confine  itself 
to  declaring  God's  indiscriminate  love  to  all  men."  We 
have  never  used  the  word  ''  indiscriminate  "  in  such  a  con- 
nection. And  we  admit  that  a  creed  so  "  confined  "  would 
be  "  lacking  in  all  the  most  precious  doctrines  of  Scripture," 
except  the  one  precious  truth  of  God's  infinite  love.  We  do 
not  propose  to  exclude  God's  special  grace  for  His  own 
elect.  But  we  propose  to  add  what  we  preach,  that  He  is 
"not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance."  This  would  not  "set  God's  sover- 
eignty and  His  love  unduly  over  against  one  another," 
neither  would  it  "overburden  the  Confession  with  the 
darker  shadows  of  man's  sin  and  God's  holy  justice."  It 
would  bring  our  Creed  more  into  conformity  with  God's 
Word,  and  illuminate  and  sweeten  it  with  the  very  light 
and  sweetness  of  the  Gospel. 

2.  Dr.  Warfield  has  one  eminent  qualification  for  a 
teacher  of  dogmatic  theology,  the  courage  of  his  convic- 
tions. Being  thoroughly  convinced  that  the  Confession 
contains  all  it  ought  to  contain,  as  an  exposition  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  that  the  demand  for  an  explicit  declaration   of 


CONFESSIONAL   REYISION.  129 

God's  infinite  love  to  men  is  unreasonable,  lie  does  u(\t 
hesitate  to  deny  that  the  New  Testament  contains  any  such 
declaration.  This  is  the  crucial  point  in  the  whole  contro- 
versy. Dr.  AVartield  contends  that  the  New  Testament 
teaches  God's  infinite  lov^e  to  men,  not  explicitly,  hut  only 
by  imj.)Ucat(on  ;  that  the  Confession  teaches  the  same  truth 
in  the  same  way,  and  therefore  he  insists  that  we  ought  to 
be  satisfied  with  the  Confession  as  it  is.  I  do  not  adniit 
that  the  Confession  teaches  it  even  by  implication.  But 
conceding,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  it  does,  I 
affirm  that  in  this  respect  our  Creed  is  not  in  harmony  witli 
the  Scriptures.  They  teach  God's  infinite  love  to  men  ex- 
plicitly, in  repeated  and  varied  declarations.  I  have  a  list 
of  more  than  fifty  familiar  texts  to  sustain  this  position,  not 
one  of  which  is  incorporated  in  our  Confession,  and  oidy 
two  of  them  are  found  among  the  appended  proof-texts. 
The  declarations  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans,  "  Jacob 
have  I  loved  and  Esau  have  I  hated  ";  "  I  v/ill  have  mercy 
on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,"  are  quoted  half  a  dozen  times, 
but  we  look  in  vain  for  the  crown  and  climax  of  the  apostle's 
argument,  "God  hath  concluded  them  all  in  unbelief  that 
lie  might  lia^e  mercy  on  alV  (Rom.  xi.  32),  for  the  simple 
reason  that  there  is  no  place  for  it,  not  even  a  branch  on 
which  it  might  be  tied  as  an  orange  on  a  Christmas  tree. 

'"  God  is  love"  is  quoted,  but  it  is  too  big  for  the  head 
it  covers.  I  submit  to  Dr.  Warfield  that  "  6rV;<rZ  ^'^  Zci"^" 
and  "'God  is  most  lovinrj^''  are  not  co-extensive,  and  that 
the  latter  does  not  even  imply  His  love  for  all  men.  It 
may  easily  be  construed  consistently  with  the  horrible 
declaration  of  the  Formvla  Con  sensHs  Helvetica :  "The 
Scrij^tures  do  not  extend  to  all  and  each  God's  purpose  of 
gliowing  mercy  to  man,  but  restrict  it  to  the  elect  alone, 
^\\e  reprobate  being  excluded,  even  l*v  name,  as  Esau, 
whom  God  hated  with  an  eternal  hatred"  (Con.  vi.). 


130  CONFESSIONAL   KEVISION. 

The  text,  "  God  so  loved  the  world,"  etc.,  is  quoted  in 
connection  with  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  dehver  some — i.  e.^ 
the  elect — out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and  misery.  I  am  glad 
Dr.  Warfield  does  not  adopt  ''  the  common  gloss  of  (some) 
theologians,"  that  "  the  world  "  means  only  the  elect.  But 
he  tells  us  that  this  text  is  unique,  that  is  to  say,  according 
to  "Worcester,  "  it  is  without  an  equal  or  another  of  the 
same  kind,"  or  as  my  brother  puts  it,  "  besides  this  one 
passage  no  other  brings  the  words  loved  and  manhind  into 
immediate  conjunction."  Of  course,  he  does  not  stickle 
for  the  mere  words ;  he  means  that  the  ideas  of  the  two 
words  are  nowhere  else  brought  into  immediate  connection. 
Plow  precious,  tl^en,  is  that  one  text.  Let  us  put  it  into 
our  Confession,  in  all  the  fullness  of  its  gracious  meaning, 
and  inscribe  it  upon  our  banner  as  an  ensign  for  the  nations. 
But  is  it  unique  ?  Is  this  the  only  declaration  of  God's  love 
for  the  world  ?  When  Christ  stood  and  wept  over  apostate 
Jerusalem  and  said,  "  How  often  would  1  have  gathered  you 
and  ye  would  not,"  did  He  not  exhibit  and  declare  God's  love 
for  all  men,  even  the  non-elect  ?  AVhen  the  apostle  says, 
*'  Christ  is  the  propitiation,  not  for  our  sins  only,  but  also  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world^^  that  "  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
men,  especially  of  them  that  believe,"  that  "  He  is  not  will- 
ing that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  rejjent- 
ance^''  that  "  He  will  have  all  men  to  he  saved  ";  is  there 
not  in  these  words  an  explicit  declaration  of  God's  infinite 
love  to  men  %  Even  admitting  that  the  infinite  love  of  God 
for  men,  and  the  sufficiency  and  free  offer  of  the  Gospel  sal- 
vation, are  only  impliedly  set  forth  in  the  Kew  Testament; 
is  it  not  the  function  of  a  Confession  to  expound  and  sum- 
marize the  Word  of  God,  and  to  furnish  those  whom  the 
Church  ordains  and  sends  forth  an  explicit  declaration  of  the 
doctrines  by  which  they  are  to  discip;  '11  nations,  and  of  the 
Gospel  they  are  to  preach  in  all  the  ein  ^m  to  every  creature? 

>/e^ 


CONFESSIONAL   REVISION.  131 

I  am  persuaded,  upon  their  own  showing,  that  but  for 
two  things,  (1)  an  honorable  but  easily  exaggerated  senti- 
ment that  all  things  should  continue  as  they  were  before 
the  fathers  fell  asleep,  and  (2)  a  vague  fear  that  there  is 
30uiewhere  in  the  Church  a  sleeping  giant  whom  it  is  very 
dangerous  to  wake  up ;  all  such  men  as  Dr.  Warfield  would 
consent  to  revision  and  seek  to  guide  it  to  safe  conclusions. 
With  the  conservative  sentiment  I  have  a  large  sympathy ; 
but  do  not  share  at  all  in  what  seems  to  me  an  unfounded 
and  unworthy  fear. 

Henry  J.  Yan  Dyke. 


r 


